AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.B. Chaudhari, J.—Heard. Admit. Taken up for final hearing and heard with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties. The respondents herein-original petitioners had adverted to two questions before the learned Single Judge. First was that the employee was working under the Employment Guarantee Scheme on the establishment of petitioners and hence the petitioners were not an "industry". Second question was that the employee had not completed 240 days of continuous service immediately preceding the date of termination of his services.
The learned single judge left the first question unanswered because he felt that the petition could be disposed of only on the second question. It was the case of the appellant-employee that he worked continuously on the establishment of respondents from 01/01/1988 to 13/07/1995 without any break and his case was accepted concurrently by the Labour and Industrial Courts. The learned Single Judge found from the evidence that the employee had completed only 230 days of continuous service preceding the date of the termination of his services and that is why he held that there was no violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
In this intra-court appeal, upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties and upon reading the judgment impugned, it is clear that there is no finding recorded by the learned Single Judge as to whether the appellant-employee had completed 240 days of continuous service in the years earlier to the year preceding the date of termination of his services i.e. during the period of the service from 01/01/1988 till 12/07/1994. This issue was not examined and that is why no finding has been recorded by the learned Single Judge. In the light of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of U.P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Company Limited Vs. Ramanuj Yadav and Others, and Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jairaj N. Shetty v. Union of India reported in 2006-I-LLJ 206, we find that completion of 240 days in the earlier years would also be relevant in the light of sub-section (2) of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Instead of quoting the relevant portion from the case of M/s. U. P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Co.Ltd. v. Ramanuj Yadav and others (supra), we would like to quote the concluding para-7 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jairaj N. Shetty v. Union of India (supra) thus -
Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel for the railways could not dispute that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U. P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. (supra), the view of the learned single Judge could hardly be supported. He fairly stated that in the light of the judgment cited supra, the legal position is crystalised that u/s 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, if a workman has worked for more than 240 days in earlier years, or any one of the earlier years, he would be deemed to be in continuous service. In our view this is correct reading of U. P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. (supra) and in view thereof the judgment of the learned single Judge has to be set aside.
It is argued by respondents that the contention raised by the respondents about the issue regarding ''industry'' has also not been dealt with by the learned Single Judge. That being so in our opinion, the following order would subserve the ends of justice.
ORDER
i) Letters Patent Appeal No.44/2012 is partly allowed.
ii) Impugned judgment and order dated 10/03/2011 in Writ Petition No.4107/2006 rendered by the learned Single Judge is set aside.
iii) Writ Petition No.4107/2006 is remitted to the learned Single Judge for fresh hearing and decision in the light of the observations made herein before and in the light of the law applicable.
iv) Since the matter relates to the year 1995, we request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible.
v) Liberty to mention before the learned Single Judge for final hearing.