HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED versus SANJAY

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 626 · Decided: 22-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 626 
HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY MARKETING 
FEDERATION LIMITED 
V. 
SANJAY 
(Civil Appeal No. 4605 of 2009) 
JULY 22, 2009 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.) 
lndlljstrial Disputes Act, 1947 -
s. 25-F r/w s.25-8 -
C Termination -
Challenge to -
Respondent-workman 
contended that he had completed more than 240 days of 
continuous service and yet mandatory procedure provided in 
s.25F was not followed - Respondent was engaged in two 
different establishments of an institution under two different 
D contracts - While computing 240 days of continuous service, 
he clubbed the period of engagement with the said two 
establishments - Justification of - Held: Not justified - On 
facts, the two establishments were distinct and separate and 
could not be treated' as one establishment for reckoning 
E continuity of service within meaning of s.25-F rlw s.25-8 -
Concept of continuous service under one employer was not 
applicable - Respondent having not completed 240 days of 
continuous service in the year preceding his termination, s.25-
F was not at all attracted - In the circumstances, order of 
F 
reinstatement passed by Courts below set aside. 
Respondent-workman had been engaged on 
. contractual basis by the District Manager, HAFED, Jind 
for 145 days and again by the District Manager, HAFED, 
Hissar for 112 days. He raised industrial dispute 
G contending that he was illegally terminated from service. 
Respondent contended that he had completed more than 
240 days of continuous service in the year preceding the 
date of termination and yet he was terminated from 
service without following the mandatory procedure 
H 
626 
_ ... 
;, 
HARYANA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY MARKETING 627 
FEDERATION LTD v. SANJAY 
provided in s.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A 
While computing 240 days of continuous service, the 
respondent clubbed the period of his engagement with 
District Manager, HAFED,. Jind and District Manager, 
HAFED, Hissar. 
The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court ordered B 
reinstatement of respondent with continuity of service 
, . 
and payment of 50% back wages. The order was upheld 
.. 
by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1. For the purposes of applicability of 
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the 
workman has to show that he has been in continuous 
service for not less than one year under an employer. A D 
> 
workman is deemed to be in continuous service for a 
period of one year if during the period of 12 calendar 
months preceding the date of termination, he has actually 
worked under the employer for not less than 240 days by 
virtue of Section 258(2) of the ID Act. The words "has E 
been in continuous service .......... under an employer" in 
Section 25-F are crucial. [Para 8] [631-F-H] 
1.2. The office of the District Manager, HAFED, Jind 
"' 
and the office of the District Manager, HAFED, Hissar are 
two distinct c:md separate establishments and cannot be 
F 
treated as one establishment for the purpose of 
reckoning continuity of service within the meaning of 
Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the ID Act. It is so 
because the workman was engaged on contract basis by 
two separate authorities under different contracts. The G 
..-~" 
contract of employment with District Manager, HAFED, 
Jind commenced on August 1, 1998 and continued upto 
December 31, 1998. The contract _with District Manager, 
HAFED, Hissar, January 15, 1999 was a separate 
H 
628 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A contract. Both authorities are distinct. It is true that the 
office of District Manager, Jind and the office of District 
Manager, Hissar are the establishments or offices of the 
HAFED but t~e authority that engaged the workman as 
Chowkidar on casual basis at Jind is different from the 
8 
authority that engaged him at Hissar. It is not unusual for 
an Institution, Corporation or Authority to have different 
offices, branches and establishments. When a casual 
employee is employed in different establishments of a 
> 
Corporation, Institution or Authority, the concept of 
c continuous service under one employer cannot be 
applied. [Para 8] [631-H; 632-A-E] 
1.3. Merely because the District Manager, Jind and 
the District Manager, Hissar are the subordinate officers 
D 
under the control of Managing Director, HAFED, the two 
offices at Jind and Hissar do not cease to be separate 
establishment for the

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