MANAGEMENT OF MCD Vs. DESH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition seeks quashing of Award dated 1 st September, 1994 in ID No.515/1989 whereby the Tribunal held that the services of the workman were terminated in violation of Section 25F, 25H and also 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ,,I.D. Act).

(2.) THE Respondent No. 1 was employed as a daily rated causal muster roll worker with the Petitioner on 9th November, 1987. From 1st December, 1987 to 15th April, 1988 he was not in employment and was not paid salary for the said period. THEreafter, he resumed his work and on 29th November, 1988 his services were terminated. On a dispute being raised the reference in following terms was made vide notification dated 16th August, 1989:-

(3.) SINCE none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.1, the written submissions filed on its behalf have been considered. It is stated that the learned Industrial Adjudicator rightly considered the break period of service with effect from 1st December, 1987 to 15th April, 1988 for computing 240 days and came to the conclusion that it was a colourable exercise of power to deprive the workman of his entitlement under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short ,,the Act). It is contended that the Honble Supreme Court in Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of American Express International Banking Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 458 gave a progressive and expansive interpretation of Section 25-B of the Act. Therefore, if any artificial break has been imposed, the said break cannot be said to interrupt the continuity of service of the workman. In the light of Samishta Dube v. City Board, Etawah and another, 1999 II AD (SC) 257, followed in Amar Pal and another v. M.C.D., 2006 II AD (Delhi) 43, it is concluded that a workman who has not completed 240 days of service is also entitled to the protection of Section 25G and H of the Act.