Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Mr. Ashok U. Nikam, a workman, filed a writ petition challenging an award of the Labour Court at Mumbai which rejected his reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman claimed that he was continuously employed by the Respondent, Tata Power Company Ltd., from 5 March 1978 to 12 June 1995, but the company gave artificial breaks to deny him permanency benefits. He alleged that his services were terminated on 12 June 1995 without a chargesheet, enquiry, or compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He sought reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The Respondent contended that the workman was employed intermittently on specific projects with separate appointment orders, and after each project, his services ended. The Labour Court framed issues regarding continuous service of 240 days and legality of termination. The Labour Court held that the workman was appointed on a temporary basis for specific periods and had not completed 240 days of continuous service. The High Court noted that the workman could not show continuous service except for one project from 24 January 1981 to 30 April 1984. The record showed multiple short-term engagements: 9 July 1978 to 20 August 1978, 4 October 1979 to 25 December 1979, 7 December 1984 to 9 February 1985, 13 March 1985 to 9 June 1985, 27 March 1986 to 24 June 1986, 19 October 1987 to 14 January 1988, 15 April 1988 to 24 May 1988, 17 July 1991 to 11 October 1991, 17 August 1992 to 12 November 1992, 2 December 1992 to 27 February 1993, and 16 March 1995 to 12 June 1995. The High Court found that this evidence indicated about 11 or 12 specific engagements, not continuous service. The workman failed to prove that he worked for 240 days in the twelve months preceding any termination. Consequently, the question of compliance with Section 25F did not arise. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Labour Court's award.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes - Continuous Service - Burden of Proof - Section 25F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The workman claimed continuous service from 5 March 1978 to 12 June 1995 but failed to prove 240 days of continuous service in the twelve months preceding termination. The Labour Court held that the workman was appointed on temporary basis for specific projects and did not complete 240 days of continuous service. The High Court upheld the award, noting that the workman's employment was intermittent and not continuous. (Paras 2-4) B) Industrial Disputes - Termination - Compliance with Section 25F - Section 25F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Since the workman failed to establish continuous service of 240 days, the question of compliance with Section 25F did not arise. The termination was not held illegal. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioner workman had completed 240 days of continuous service with the Respondent employer so as to entitle him to protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Labour Court's award which rejected the reference. The Court held that the Petitioner failed to prove continuous service of 240 days, and therefore the question of compliance with Section 25F did not arise.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on workman to establish continuous service of 240 days
- Intermittent employment does not constitute continuous service
- Termination without compliance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act not illegal if workman fails to prove continuous service
