MANGROO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This is a Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25-8-1983 passed by VIIIth Addition al Distiict Judge, Allahabad, Shri S. C. Shukla in Civil Appeal No. 490 of 1982 in Original Suit No. 66 of 1980 allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismiss ing the plaintiff/appellants' suit for declara tion.

(2.) THE brief facts on which this appeal has arisen are as follows.

(3.) SHRI Radhey Shyam, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the trial court has completely ignored the evidence of the appellants and should not have ignored the finding of the appellate court without valid reasons. It has further argued that the evidence of cards of employ ment showing working days have been ig nored without any rhyme or reason. He fur ther submitted that finding should not have been disturbed. He further submitted that the appellate court wrongly relied upon the evidence of vounchers which were produced by the respondents. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appel lants. Reference would be made to record of service of casual labour Ram Chandra. It shows that he is working since 28-10-1976 and the total number of working days is 383 days in different spells. It is correct that the employment is not continuous. It is with breaks. It generally happens that the employment is given against the work avail able and these poor labourers do a very typical type of work. Similarly, SHRI Mangroo's record shows that he is working from 1969 and total working days upto 1976 is 1518. It is also correct that he has not worked continuously for four months but the intention of the Railway circular is that this artificial breaks is to be ignored. Similarly there are so many rulings of the Apex Court and which requires no reitera tion laying the principle that artificial breaks are to be discarded and are ignored in computing the period of service.