RAMJI PANDEY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) The case of the workman before the Labour Court was that he was engaged w.e.f. 7,6.1994 on daily wage @ Rs. 12/- per day as clerk in the establishment of the respondents and has worked for 293 days in a period of 12 months till termination of his services on 29.3.1985. The case of the employer before the Lower Court was that petitioner was engaged on need basis temporarily @ Rs. 12/- per day which came to an end on 7-6.1994 and that the workman had not put in continuous service of 240 days in a year as such provisions of section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not applicable requiring the employer to pay notice pay and retrenchment compensation etc.

(3.) The Labour Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence found that from exhibit P.W. 1 it is evident that employer had employed the workman (c) 12 per day on the post of clerk and that according to the statement of Sri S. Kumar the workman was disengaged when no surplus work of clerical nature was available to be performed by him. The Labour Court in proceedings has recorded a finding of fact that from the date of appointment on 7.6.1994 to the date of termination on 25.3.1985 he has worked for 293 days only but he does not fulfill the condition precedent for applications of provisions of section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inas much as he had not put in continuous service as defined in section 2 (g) of the Act for 12 Calender months having only worked nine months in year 1984 and 1985.