LALARAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The workman contended that he had worked from 27.01.1987 to 26.11.1987, hence his termination/ retrenchment was illegal as no retrenchment compensation as required by Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act had been paid to him even though he had worked for 240 days. The labour court held that petitioner had not completed one year hence provisions of Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes (I.D.) Act were not applicable. In my opinion, the labour court was quite correct in its interpretation. Under Section 2(g) of U.P. I.D. Act, continuous service has been defined as a period of 12 calender months during which the workman has actually worked for not less than 240 days and according to Section 6-N of U.P.I.D. Act, retrenchment compensation is necessary if a workman has been in continuous service for not less than one year. The Supreme Court in "Sita Ram v. Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute, 2008 AIR(SC) 1955 has held that there is a difference between Section 6-N of U.P.I.D. Act and its corresponding provision under I.D. Act i.e. Section 25-F.

(3.) The definition of continuous service given in U.P.I.D. Act is pari materia with the definition of the same given in Section 25-B and Section 2(eee) of I.D. Act as it stood prior to 1964 Amendment. Interpreting the unamended I.D. Act (which is pari materia with the current U.P.I.D. Act), the Supreme Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1963 AIR(SC) 1914 held that the workman must have worked for 240 days in 12 calender months. If 240 days were completed but during a period which was less than 12 calender months then the provision was not attracted and requirement of payment of compensation before retrenchment was not applicable. However, in 1964 the provisions of I.D. Act were amended by Act No.36 of 1964. The Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Verma and Ors. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Anr., 1981 AIR(SC) 422 has noticed the difference of the relevant provision in I.D. Act before and after the Amendment of 1964. The facts of the said case were that the two workmen Usha Kumari and Madhubala had worked from May, 1974 to January, 1975 for 258 and 266 days respectively. The Supreme Court held that the period between two dates was not one year. It further held that the two workmen would not have been entitled to any relief under the unamended provisions of I.D. Act, however after the amendment of 1964 substituting Section 25-B and deleting Section 3(eee), both the workmen became entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.