RAM BILAS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The admitted facts are that it was an industry; the employer dispensed with the services of the workman; the workman raised an Industrial dispute; the Industrial Tribunal gave its award holding that the workman had worked more than 240 days in a year when his services were dispensed with and so his services could not be terminated. But the Tribunal did not order his reinstatement and instead ordered that retrenchment compensation be given to the workman. It is against this order that the workman has filed the present writ petition and he prays that his reinstatement should be ordered. It is contested by the employer.

(2.) The finding of the Tribunal that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding year has not been assailed and the only argument of the employer is that this period of 240 days was not continuous because during this period his services were extended several times after a break of a few days and his services came to an end automatically after the period provided in his appointment order. Moreover, it has been submitted that the employee should have been appointed after consultation with Institutional Service Board, while he was not appointed in this manner and was appointed by the Management without being selected by the Institutional Service Board.

(3.) The term 'continuous service' has been defined in Section 2(g) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It means uninterrupted service, and includes service which may be interrupted merely on account of cessation of work, which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman. In the case before us it was the employer who made the workman to cease in an artificial manner just in the hope that this may amount to interruption, but it will not amount to interruption as the cessation of work was not due to any fault of the workman. This provision further says that the workman, who during a period of twelve calendar months has actually worked in an industry for not less than two hundred and forty days, shall be deemed to have completed one year of continuous service. In the case before us, there is unassailed finding that the workman actually worked for 240 days. So, it will be deemed that he has completed continuous service of one year.