MUNSHI KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petition is directed against the Award dated 4. 4. 96 passed the by Labour Court Bhilwara.

(3.) PERUSAL of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that it envisages viewing the question of `continuous service for one year or more' in two different alternative and independent perspective. Firstly a person may be in continuous service actually for a period of one year or more. In that event, the question is not of so much of counting the actual working days in calendar month but the question is of continuous service for a period with uninterrupted service including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessaion of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman. If a person is in actual employment for a period of more than one year the question will have to be determined u/s. 25-B (1 ). It is only where a case is not covered under Sec. 25-B (1), one has to direct his enquiry into existence of conditions under sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 25-B, which envisages that even where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of Sec. 25-B (1) for a period of one year or six months, as the case may be, still he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year if the workman during the period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has worked under the employer for not less than 190 days in case of a workman employed below ground in a mine, and 240 days in any other case, or for a period of six months if the workman during the period of six calendar months preceding the date has actually worked under the employer for not less than 95 days in case of a workman employed below ground in a mine and 120 days in any other case. The actual working may be in fact in a period of less than 12 calendar months and may not be continuously for the requisite days. That is to say the concerned workman must have been in actual service, whether continuously or with breaks for 240 days in a span of period not exceeding 12 calendar months immediately preceding the relevant date of termination. As in the present case the claim is that the petitioner's services were terminated w. e. f. 1st Aug. 92, the relevant enquiry u/s. 25-B (2) shall be actual working days between Aug. 91 till July 92, which constitutes the span of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the relevant date. During this period he may or may not be employed in each of the calendar month nor it is required that actual working of 240 days be uninterrupted or continuously, 240 days actually working may be accounted by totalling the intermittent working during the said span. It is also no more in doubt that in calculating the actual working days, the paid holidays and weekly holdings are also to be included. The concept of `uninterrupted service' is not relevant u/s. 25-B (2) in contrast to Sec. 25-B (1 ).