EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. CHETAN P OZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. Placing reliance upon certain judgements of this Court, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in light of the said judgements and the legal position, the workman should show to the Court that within last one year from the date of retrenchment, he had completed 240 days' work and unless he shows so, he would not be entitled to the benefits of continuous service. The submission, in fact, is that if in the earlier years, the workman has done work for 240 days, the same would not enure to his benefit, but, he is still obliged to inform the Court that within one year preceding the date of the order of termination or retrenchment, he has completed 240 days.

(2.) PLACING reliance upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of U. P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. v. Ramanuj Yadav and Ors. , 2004 SCC (Lands) 46, the learned Counsel for the workman submits that if in the year preceding the date of retrenchment, the workman has not completed 240 days, the same would not make any difference if he can show to the Court that in the earlier years, the said workman has completed 240 days. 23/06/2005

(3.) MS. Mandavia, learned Counsel for the appellant, placing reliance upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd. , has submitted that in the matter of Mohan Lal, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that for application of Section-25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the workman/employee should satisfy the Court that he had worked for 240 days in twelve calendar months, just preceding the relevant date i. e. the date of retrenchment. Her submission is that the judgement in the matter of U. P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. (supra) is clearly distinguishable in view of different language employed in the different provisions of law.