Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which upheld an award by the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Hissar, ordering the reinstatement of the respondent-workman, Sanjay, with continuity of service and payment of 50% back wages. Sanjay was engaged as a Chowkidar on a casual basis by the District Manager, HAFED, Jind in August 1998 for 29 days, and after several renewals, he worked until December 31, 1998. He was then engaged by the District Manager, HAFED, Hissar on January 15, 1999, until May 31, 1999. Following the non-renewal of his contract, he issued a demand notice under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, claiming illegal termination of his services. The Labour Court found that he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service and that his termination violated Section 25-F of the Act. The appellant-management contended that the workman had not completed the requisite 240 days of continuous service as he worked in two separate establishments. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the periods of service at the two offices could be combined for the purpose of Section 25-F. It concluded that the two offices were distinct establishments and that the workman’s service periods could not be aggregated. The court referenced previous judgments to support its reasoning, emphasizing that casual employees working in different establishments cannot claim continuous service. Ultimately, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment and the Labour Court's award, ruling that the workman had not completed the necessary continuous service for the application of Section 25-F.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Continuous Service - Distinction Between Establishments - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 25-F, 25-B - The court held that the offices of District Manager, HAFED, Jind and HAFED, Hissar are separate establishments and the services rendered by the workman at these two establishments cannot be clubbed for the purpose of reckoning continuity of service. The workman did not complete 240 days of continuous service under one employer, thus Section 25-F was not applicable (Paras 7-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the work rendered by the respondent in the office of District Manager, HAFED, Jind and the District Manager, HAFED, Hissar can be clubbed together for the purposes of application of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the judgment of the High Court and the award of the Labour Court, ruling that the respondent had not completed 240 days of continuous service under one employer as required by Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Continuous service
- illegal retrenchment
- Section 25-F
- Section 25-B
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
