Tourism Dev. Corpn. Ltd. & Anr Vs. Intejam Ali Zafri  Insc 408 (13 July 2006)
& Lokeshwar Singh Panta Dr.Ar.Lakshmanan,J.
Kr.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Indra Makwana, learned
counsel for the respondent-workman.
have perused the records and the order impugned in this appeal.
The Labour Court has held that the appellant has
worked for 240 days. In our opinion, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is factually incorrect. The appellant
has placed material before us and also before the Labour Court that the workman
has worked only for 227 days in about four years as per the following
description as contained in para 5 of the reply to the statement of claim :-
"December, 1987 4 days January, 1988 27 days February, 1988 25 days March,
1988 27 days March, 1990 23 days April, 1990 23 days May, 1990 20 days July,
1990 18 days August, 1990 18 days December, 1991 14 days January, 1992 24 days
February, 1992 04 days ___________________ Total Days 227 days"
__________________ The respondent has not worked for 240 days in one calendar
year which is the condition precedent for attracting provisions of Section 25F
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This apart, the workman was a causal house
assistant who never worked for 240 days continuously in one calendar year. As
per the provisions of Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, there
should be working of 240 days in one calendar year. Hence, the provisions of
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted in the instant
case for the reason that the respondent worked only for 227 days in about 4
years period from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 28.12.1987 to the
date of termination i.e. 07.02.1992. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge
as also the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have
committed a mistake of law in ordering reinstatement with back wages etc. This
apart, the order passed by the Division Bench is also non-speaking.
already noticed, it is the settled proposition of law that when the initial
appointment itself is void then the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial
Disputes Act are not applicable while terminating the services of the workman.
The respondent-workman has also not placed before the Labour Court the relevant documents and not even
summoned the records before the Labour Court. It is seen from the records that neither the Labour Court called for the records concerned
nor the respondent-workman moved an application before the Labour Court for summoning the records. The
respondent-workman led no cogent and convincing evidence before the Labour Court. Accordingly, the award passed by
the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set
the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order of reinstatement and back wages
passed by the courts below. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. No costs.
make it clear that if any payment is made to the respondent during the pendency
of appeal in this Court, the same shall not be recovered.
view of the order now passed, the proceedings before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) has become infructuous.