WORKMEN OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTER NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION Vs. MANAGEMENT OF AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation who sponsored the cause of their fellow workman B. Ravichandran in an Industrial Dispute are the appellants in this appeal by special leave of this court. The American Express International Banking Corporation terminated the services of the workman on Oct. 31, 1975. It is common ground that the provisions of S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with. According to the management it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of S. 25-F as the workman concerned was not in continuous service for not less than one year as prescribed by S. 25-F read with S. 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The tribunal upheld the contention of the management. The workmen have preferred this appeal.

(2.) The facts very briefly are that the workman joined the service of the American Express International Banking Corporation on Nov. 4, 1974 as a typist-clerk in a temporary capacity and was employed as such, with a number of short breaks, till Oct. 31, 1975 when his services were terminated. According to the workman excluding the breaks in service, he 'actually worked under the employee for 275 days during the period of 12 months immediately preceding Oct. 31, 1975 whereas according to the employer he actually worked for 220 days only. The difference between the two computations is due to the circumstance that the workman has included and counted Sundays and other paid holidays as days on which he 'actually worked under the employee, while the employer has not done so. The question for consideration is whether Sundays and other holidays for which wages are paid under the law, by contract or statute, should be treated as days on which the employee ,actually worked under the employer' for the purposes of S. 25-F read with S. 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as follows:-

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the parties cited in the course of their submissions the decisions of this court in Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, (1981) 1 SCR 789, Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd., Sholapur, (1981) 2 SCR 796, Mohan Lal v. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd.. (1981) 3 SCR 518, Jeewan Lal Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, (1984) 2 Lab LJ 464 and Sakhkkar Mills Mazdoor Sangh v. Gwalior Sugar Mills Ltd., AIR 1985 SC 758.