Ghaziabad Development Authority & Anr. v. Ashok Kumar & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1322 of 2008 ([2008] 2 S.C.R. 1069; Supreme Court of India, decided 15 February 2008; bench S.B. Sinha and Harjit Singh Bedi JJ., judgment delivered by S.B. Sinha J.) — A workman appointed by the appellant Authority as 'Amin' on 1.4.1988 (admittedly on a daily wage of Rs. 17/- per day) was disengaged after a bit more than two years on the ground that State sanction existed only upto 30.3.1990. On the State's reference, the Presiding Judge, Labour Court, U.P., Ghaziabad held he had worked more than 240 days in a year, that the requirements of s. 6-N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been complied with, and directed reinstatement with full back wages; the appellant's writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30264 of 1996) was dismissed by judgment and order dated 23.03.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Held (appeal partly allowed): (1) the offer of appointment was not produced, so the Court proceeded on the basis that the workman served the entire period 1.4.1988–31.3.1990 and had worked more than 240 days in a year, making compliance with s. 6-N obligatory — one month's notice (or wages in lieu) and compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay per completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months; s. 6-N, unlike s. 258 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does not accept working 240 days in the preceding year as sufficient, requiring 240 days in one year; the proviso to clause (a) excusing notice where retrenchment occurs under an agreement specifying a termination date is not in pari materia with s. 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; the appellant failed to prove any such agreement, which even if proven would not absolve payment of clause (b) compensation. (2) Reinstatement with full back wages was nonetheless unjustified: the workman was a daily wager, the post was not sanctioned by the State after 31.3.1990 (undisputed), a statutory authority may recruit only upon compliance with the equality clause of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution (violative appointments being void), and public interest opposed reinstatement after such a long lapse — hence compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was ordered in place of reinstatement, payable within eight weeks, failing which it carries interest at 12% per annum; no order as to costs. A contention that the appellant was not an 'Industry' within s. 2(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was raised in the Special Leave Petition but not pressed.
