GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. versus ASHOK KUMAR & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 1069 · Decided: 15-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

~-
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 1069 
- y 
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 
A 
v. 
ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. 
(Civ.il Appeal No. 1322 of 2008) 
\ 
FEBRUARY 15, 2008 
e· 
I~ 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 6-N -
Termination of service - After two years of service - lnudstrial 
dispute alleging non-compliance of s. 6-N -
Workman c 
claiming to have worked for 240 days in a year - Employer's 
stand that employment taken under an ·agreement providing 
for a specific date for termination thereof- Labour court holding 
the workman entitled to reinstatement with back wages -
Confirmed by High Court - On appeal, held: In absence of D 
..,.<" 
proof regarding the employment being under an agreement 
providing for date of termination, the workman would be 
deemed to have worked for the entire period of two years -
Workman having worked for 240 days in a year, compliance 
of s. 6-N was obligatory- However, since there was no sanction 
E 
by State for creation of such post, reinstatement of the workman 
_. 
is not called for - A statutory authority is obliged to make 
'• 
recruitments only on compliance of Articles 14 and 16 of the 
.Constitution - Workman is entitled to relief of compensation 
..._ ... 
instead of reinstatement- Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 
14 and 16- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- ss. 2(00), (bb) and F, 
25-B. 
Respondent was employed by the appellant-
Authority as an 'Amin'. After two years he was disengaged 
from the service. Respondent raised industrial dispute on G 
..,. 
the ground that his removal from service was without 
compliance of s. 6-N of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes 
' 
Act, 1947 as he had worked for 240 days in a year. Stand 
~ 
of the appellant was that appointment of the respondeht 
1069 
H 
-~ 
107!0 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
; 
I 
~ -
A was taken under an agreement providing for a specific . 
I date for termination thereof. Labour Court passed the · 
,~ward in favour of the respondent holding him entitled to 
be reinstated in service with full back wages. Writ petition 
against the order of labour court was dismissed. Hence 
/ 
B the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
~·. 
HELD: 1.1 Tt.e offer of appointment has •. ,not been 
produced. Whether Respondent No. 1 continued to work 
c on and from 1.4.1988 in terms of the said offer of 
appointment or it was renewed from time to time on the 
basis of grant of sanction thereof by the State of U.P. for 
specific periods is not known. Therefore, the court would 
proceed on the basis that the first respondent worked with 
D the appellant authority for the entire period between 
1.4.1988 and 31.3.1990. If that period is taken during which 
"'y 
the respondent remained in service into consideration for 
the purposes of applicability of Section 6-N of the U.P. 
Industrial Disputes Act, there is no doubt whatsoever that 
E the first respondent had worked for more than 240 days 
in a year from the date of retrenchment. It was, therefore, 
obligatory on the par:t of the appellant to comply with the 
-
provisions of Section 6-N of the Act. [Para 7] [107 4-C, D, E] 
\ 
1.2 Section 6-N of the Act unlike Section 258 of the 
.... ,.._ 
F Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not provide that 
working for a period of 240 days in the preceding year 
would subserve the purpose. What is necessary under 
the said provision is wbrking for a period of 240 days in 
one year. Once, a workman, has been in continuous 
G service for not less than one year before his retrenchment, 
one month's notice in writing indicating the reason thereof 
...,.... 
or wages in lieu thereof, as also compensation equivalent 
•
to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of 
-
service or in part thereof in excese of six months is 
H imperative. Proviso appended to clause (a) of Section 6-
-( 
GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. v. 
1071 
ASHOK KUMAR & ANR. 
N of the Act provides that no notice would be necessary A 
-- ).' 
to be served, if the retrenchment has been in terms of 
an agreement which specified a date for the termination 
of service. The said proviso is not in pari materia with 
Section 2(oo) and (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
-
[Para 8) [1075-C, D, E] 
8 
1.3 Appellant has failed to prove that the services of 
--{ 
"f 
the first respondent were taken under an agreement 
providing for a specific date for termination thereof. Even 
otherwise, the same does not ab

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