Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13.In any event, it was submitted that when the petitioner produced the available chalans for having remitted at the end of each day collection of the bus in Ex.W4 series and established that he rendered service for more than 240 days in 12 months, the Labour Court ought to have held that the non employment was not justified. According to the learned counsel, he prepared a chart showing the number of days worked by the petitioner based on the chalans in Ex.W4 series. As per the chart, the petitioner worked for 27 days in 1993, 195 days in 1994, 249 days in 1995 and 12 days in 1996. Since he worked for 249 days in 1995 alone as per the chalans in Ex.W4 series, the Labour Court ought to have held that the termination of the petitioner, without complying with Section 25 (F) of I.D.Act, is void abinitio. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that since the termination amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the I.D.Act, the termination is void abinitio, as the mandatory conditions stipulated under Section 25(F) of I.D. Act were not complied with. He relied on the following judgments.

4.The finding that the contract should be spread over 12 calender months to qualify for the protection under Section 25F is erroneous, in the light of the Supreme Court cases cited above. When the petitioner had worked for 240 days, the finding of the Labour Court is erroneous and clearly unsustainable. With reference to the statement that the workmen had not worked, thereby has not complied with the requirement would not apply to the case on hand. The same is referred to in the interim application filed by the workmen. The workmen had given the details of the number of days worked and he has claimed that he has worked for 236 days. Further the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent states the duty cannot be equated to a day and therefore, no presumption can be made even by taking into account the statutory off and the employee should be given protection under Section 25(F) of I.D.Act. Ultimately, the respondent has not complied with Section 25(F)(a) and (b) and therefore, the termination of the petitioner or non-engagement of the petitioner beyond 240 days is void abinitio and the order of non-employment is totally illegal."

36.From the above decision, the Apex Court makes it clear that Section 25-B(2)(a) of the I.D.Act protects the workman who rendered more than 240 days of service in any of the years preceding the 12 months from the date of the termination but failed to render 240 days of service in the last 12 months preceding the date of termination.

37.I have therefore no hesitation to hold that the termination of the petitioner is illegal and void abinitio. The award of the Labour Court holding otherwise is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

40.At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of the phrase "for any reason whatsoever" appearing in Section 2(oo) of the I.D.Act that was interpreted by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Bank Vs. Labour Court, Chandigarh and Others reported in 1990 (3) SCC 682 that termination of irregular appointment would also come in this category. The Constitution Bench considered a batch of appeals. In those cases, appointments were made by an authority, who was not competent to appoint the workman and the workman was sought to be terminated, the Constitution Bench held that the termination amounts to retrenchment and non compliance of 25(F) of I.D. Act would render the termination "void abinitio". Para 82 aforesaid judgment is extracted herein in this regard.