ADMINISTRATOR KAMALA NEHRU MEMORIAL HOSPITAL versus VINOD KUMAR

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 572 · Decided: 08-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ADMINISTRATOR KAMALA NEHRU MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 
v. 
VINODKUMAR 
DECEMBER 8, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Ss. 2(eee), 17(B) and 25(B)/Uttar Pradesh 
C lndustri(ll Disputes Act, 1947; Section 2(g) and 6(N): 
Termination of services of a workman/Clerk by employer-hospital-
Dispute-Held: Since the workman remained in continuous service only for 
a period of five months and not for one year, he was not entitled to the 
D protection/relief in terms of provisions· of the U.P. Act-High Court erred in 
setting aside the order of the labour Court by counting the service of the 
workman as continuous in terms of amended provisions of law in Section 25-
B of the Industrial Disputes Act instead of Section 2(g) of the U.P. Act, which 
is impermissible. 
E 
Appellant-Hospital terminated the services of the respondent-workman 
raising a dispute, which was referred by the State Government to Labour Court 
for adjudication. According to the workman, he had worked as Clerk for 240 
days continuously in one calendar year and, therefore, he was entitled to the 
protection in terms of Section 6(N) of the U.P. Act. Labour Court held that 
the respondent had failed to establish his claim, as he remained in continuous 
F service only for a period of five months, even though he might have worked 
for 240 days or more during a year. The order was challenged by the 
respondent Single Judge of the High Court held that since amendment 
brought in the Industrial Disputes Act was prospective in effect, the view taken 
by the Labour Court that the respondent had not completed 240 days' 
G continuous service in one calendar year suffers from manifest error of law 
and therefore, it was liable to be set aside. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant-employer that though some changes 
were introduced in the Industrial Disputes Act, but corresponding provisions 
in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Dispute Act remained unamended and 
II 
572 
• 
ADMINISTRATOR KAMALA NEHRU MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 1•. VINOD KUMAR 
573 
continued as before; that the definition of "continuous service" as given in A 
Section 2(g) of the U.P. Act was clearly inapplicable in the case of the 
respondent; that the view expressed by the High Court regarding entitlement 
of respondent under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is contrary 
to facts. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. In view of the clear definition of "continuous service" in 
Section 2(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, which means 
uninterrupted service of not less than 240 days in one completed year, the 
respondent-workman was clearly not entitled to any relief. [576-H] 
1.2. As a matter of fact the Labour Court has found that the respondent 
B 
c 
had worked for five months which is undisputedly less than 240 days. The 
High Court seems to have adopted the definition given in Section 25-B of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, which is clearly impermissible. Definition of 
"Continuous Service" given in Section 25-B of the l.D. Act is different from D 
the definition of the said expression given in Section 2(g) of the U.P. Act. 
(577-B, CJ 
1.3. As per the pre-amended position it was necessary for the workman 
to continue in service in the 12 calendar months period to have actually 
worked for at least 240 days. After the amendment the position is different. E 
But the earlier position remains the same so far as the U.P. Act is concerned . 
That being the case the High Court's judgment is clearly unsustainable and 
is accordingly set aside. (577-D] 
2. The observations of the High Court that because of the compulsions 
of unemployment the workman has no option but to continue as a practising p . 
Advocate are clearly contrary to material on record. The respondent was not 
entitled to any entitlement under Section 17-B of the Act. However if any 
amount has already been paid in the peculiar facts of the case, the respondent 
shall not be liable to refund the same. [577-F, GI . 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7908 of2004. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22. I 0.2003 of the Punjab and 
. Haryana High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 3530of1985. 
Raju Ramachandran, Arjun Bhandari, Mukesh K. Sinha, Suman Sourabh 
Sinha and Arun K. Sinha for the Appellant. 
H 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
R.D. Upadhyay, Awadhesh Kr. Singh and J.P. Tripathi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.