British India Corpn. Ltd. vs Labour Court and Others

M. Katju, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, dated 4.11.1992.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and persued the impugned award. The reference order was as to whether the termination of service of Respondent No. 2 with effect from 4.1.1984 was valid. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention to the appointment letter dated 4.1.1983, true copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He submitted that the said letter states that the Petitioner''s appointment was for a period of one year and hence he argued that it is not case of retrenchment in view of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Dispute Act. It may be noted that Clause (bb) was inserted u/s 2(oo) by Act 49 of 1984 with effect from 18.8.1984. Hence this amendment did not exist on 4.1.1984 when the service of the Respondent No. 2 was terminated. Hence Clause (bb) will not apply to the facts of the present case as it has no retrospective operation. Since the Respondent No. 2 had worked for one year, i.e., more than 240 days as held in the impugned award, Section 6N of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act was violated vide State Bank of India v. Sandar Money AIR 1976 SC 1111. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned award. The writ petition is dismissed.