ADMINISTRATOR KAMALA NEHRU MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The learned Single Judge held that the termination of services of the respondent was contrary to the provisions of Section 6(N) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the U.P. Act). Directions were given for reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% of the back wages from the date of termination of the services till the date of award.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : On the basis of a dispute raised by the respondent a reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court, Allahabad for adjudication of the following question :

(3.) The respondents case as set up in the dispute and as was canvassed before the labour Court was that he was employed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the employer) on 16-9-1980 as a clerk and had continued till 21st October, 1982 with some breaks. According to him he had worked for 240 days continuously in one calendar year and, therefore, was entitled to the protections of Section 6(N) of the U.P. Act. The Labour Court held that the respondent had not established his claim. It was noticed that the respondent was appointed for a limited period and after the expiry of that period he was removed from job. On the basis of subsequent applications appointments used to be given and he used to get engagement accordingly. He remained in continuous service only for 5 months. Therefore, though he may have worked for 240 days or more during the period of his service he had not remained in continuous service for one year. The labour Court found that he was engaged for a special work. Aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court a writ petition was filed by the respondent. The High Court held (without indicating as to which provision it was referring to) that the amendment brought in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) is prospective and not retrospective. Reference was made to several decisions of various High Courts to hold that since amendment brought in the Act was prospective, the view taken by the Labour Court that the respondent had not completed 240 days continuous service in one calendar year suffers from manifest error of law and therefore, was liable to be set aside.