EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO DIGWADIH COLLIERY versus THEIR WORKMEN

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 448 · Decided: 22-03-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

EMPJ,OYERS IN RELATION TO DIGW ADIB COLLIERY 
A 
v. 
THEIR WORKMEN 
March 22, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. W ANCHOO.: M. HIDAYATULLAH 
AND V. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Ind.w;trial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), ss. 25B and 25F-Continuous 
servi'ce, meaning of. 
A bad!i workman· worked as the appellant's employee for more 
than 240 days, with interruptions in each of the calendar years 1959 
and 1960. He was retrenched in 1961. An industrial dispute having 
arisen, it was referred to the Tribunal, which held, that the appellant 
was not justified in terminating the services of the workman as the 
provisions of s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not com-
plied with. 
Tn its appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the 
section could a.pply only if the workman had put in 240 days' conti. 
nuous service in any of the years 1959 and 1960. 
HELD: Section 25B says that, for the purpose of s. 25F a work-
man who, in a period of 12 calendar months has actually worked for 
not less than 240 days shall be deemed to have completed one year 
of continuous service. Service for 240 days in a period of 12 calendar 
months is equal not only to service for a year but is to be deemed 
continuous service even if interrupted. Therefore, though s. 25F 
speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the. 
employer, both the conditions are fulfilled if the workman has actual-
ly worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months. It is 
not necessary to read the definition of continuous service in s. 2(eee) 
into s. 25B, because, the fiction converts service of 240 days in a 
period of the twelve calendar months intn continuous service for one 
complete year. [451C-E] 
The amendments introduced by the Industrial Disputes (Amend-
ment) Act, 1964 into ss. 25B and 25F only removed the discordance 
between the unamended sections 25B and 25F (b) and vagueness 
which existed previously. But neither before the amendments nor 
after, is uninterrupted service necessary, if the total service is 240 
days in a period of 12 calendar months. [ 452D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the award dated August 3, 1962 
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad in Re-
ference No. 56 of 1961. 
B. Sen and I.N. Shroff, for the appellants. 
The respondent did not appear. 
;, 
;Sfhe Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
· 'ifldayatullah, J. This is an appeal by special leave against 
the Award dated August 3, 1962, of the Central Government Indus-
-··- tria} Tril:>unal Dhanbad, under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 
,! --
448 
.. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
DIGWADIH COLLIERY v. WOI\KME-'< (llidayatuUah, J.) 
449 
The appellants are the Employers in relation to Digwadih Col· 
liery and the respondents their workmen. The workmen did not ap-
pear in this Court. The dispute was whether the management of the 
colliery was just'fied in terminating the services of Jaldhar Singh 
with back wages. 
Jaldhar Singh was a 'bad!i' workman which means (as defined 
hy the Standing Orders of the colliery) a person appointed in the 
post of a permanent employee or probationer who is temporarily 
absent. He worked as badli in the cafondar years 1959 and 1960 in 
d;fferent capacities. His employment was, of course, not continuom 
and there were six breab of one day to a week in 1959 and eight 
hreaks of one day to a week in 1960. However, he worked for more 
than 240 days in each calendar year though with these interruptions. 
In January 1961 the colliery terminated Jaldhar Singh's services 
without notice to him or payment of wages ;n lieu of notice or com-
pensation. A dispute arising, conciliation was attempted but foiled 
and the reference followed. 
Before the Tribunal the workmen claimed that Jaldhar Singh 
was a permanent 
wh'le the Employers contended that he 
was temporary. The Employers stated that as some of the perma 
nent staff had become surplus, there was no need of badli work-
men and the term'nation of Jaldhar Singh's service was justified. 
The workmen attempted to prove that Jaldhar Singh was perma-
nent from 1960 and produced some documents from which they 
asked that this inference be drawn but the Tribunal did not agree. 
The workmen relied in the altcrnat;ve upon s. 25F of the Act be· 
cause Jaldhar Singh had put in service of 240 days in each of the 
years and contended that as the Employers had failed to comply 
with the provisio

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