Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the termination of services of 29 workmen by the appellant, M/s. U.P. Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Company Limited, effective from 31st March 1987. The appellant contended that the workmen were casual workers who had not completed 240 days of service in the year preceding their termination, thus justifying their termination under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen challenged this termination, leading to a referral by the State Government to the labour court. The labour court found that while the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in each year from 1983 to 1986, they did not meet the 240-day requirement in the year leading up to their termination. Consequently, the labour court ruled that they were not entitled to the protections of Section 6N of the UP Act. However, 18 of the workmen appealed this decision to the High Court, which overturned the labour court's ruling, stating that the workmen were deemed to be in continuous service due to their prior work history, thus rendering their termination illegal. The High Court ordered reinstatement and payment of wages from the date of reinstatement, excluding back wages. The appellant contested this judgment, arguing that the requirement of 240 days in the preceding year was essential for the applicability of Section 6N. The Supreme Court analyzed the legislative intent behind the UP Act and the interpretation of continuous service, ultimately dismissing the appeal and upholding the High Court's decision. The court emphasized that the interpretation of welfare legislation should favor the working class and that the requirement of 240 days in the preceding year was not applicable under Section 2(g) of the UP Act. The court directed the respondents to be reinstated from November 2003 and to be paid wages from that month, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Continuous Service - Definition and Applicability - Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 2(g), 6N - The court held that the requirement of completing 240 days of service in the preceding year is not applicable for the benefit of continuous service under Section 2(g) of the UP Act. The High Court's interpretation that workmen who had completed 240 days in earlier years were deemed to be in continuous service was upheld, leading to the conclusion that their termination was illegal (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the workmen were entitled to the protection of Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 despite not having worked for 240 days in the year preceding their termination.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's ruling that the workmen were in continuous service and that their termination was illegal under Section 6N of the UP Act. The court directed reinstatement from November 2003 and payment of wages from that date, with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Interpretation of welfare legislation
- continuous service
- retrenchment conditions
- applicability of Section 6N
- UP Act
- 1947
