MOHD. ALI versus STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 727 · Decided: 16-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
727
MOHD. ALI
v.
STATE OF H.P. AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 3803 of 2018)
APRIL 16, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s. 25F – Condition precedent
to retrenchment – Appellant was engaged as casual labour in the
agriculture farm on muster roll basis – He worked there from 1980
to 1991 and completed 240 days in a calendar year, during the
years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1986 to 1989 – Respondent-State case
was that thereafter in 1991 he abandoned the work without
informing and never returned to work – In 2005, appellant made
representation before the State u/s. 10 – Pursuant thereto, the State
made reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which
gave the award and directed the respondent-State to reinstate the
appellant in service with seniority and continuity while denying back
wages – Writ petition filed by the respondent-State – Award set aside
by the High Court – Held: It is an admitted position that though the
appellant worked  from 1980 to 1991 and completed 240 days in a
calendar year, during the years 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1986 to
1989 but he worked only for 195 days in the year 1990 and 19.5
days in the immediate preceding year of his dismissal which is below
the required 240 days of working in the period of 12 calendar
months preceding the date of dismissal, therefore, he is not entitled
to take the benefits of the provisions of  s.25F of the Act – High
Court was right in setting aside the award passed by Tribunal.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Enactment of the Act  – Object
of.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Industrial Disputes Act is a welfare
legislation. The intention behind its enactment was to protect
the employees from arbitrary retrenchments. For this reason only,
in a case of retrenchment of an employee who has worked for a
year or more, Section 25F provides a safeguard in the form of
giving one month’s prior notice indicating the reasons for
   [2018] 6 S.C.R. 727
727
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
728
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
retrenchment to the employee and also provides for wages for
the period of notice. Section 25B of the Act provides that when a
person can be said to have worked for one year and the very
reading of the said provisions makes it clear that if a person has
worked for a period of 240 days in the last preceding year, he is
deemed to have worked for a year. The theory of 240 days for
continuous service is that a workman is deemed to be in
continuous service for a period of one year, if he, during the period
of twelve calendar months preceding the date of retrenchment
has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240
days. [Para 9] [733-C-E]
2. Though the appellant worked as such till 1991 under
different work/schemes i.e. Rabi and Kharif and completed 240
days in a calendar year only during the years 1980, 1981, 1982
and 1986 to 1989 but he worked only for 195 days in the year
1990 and 19.5 days in the immediate preceding year of his
dismissal which is below the required 240 days of working in the
period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of dismissal,
therefore, he is not entitled to take the benefits of the provisions
of Section 25F of the Act. [Para 12] [737-G]
Surendra Kumar Verma and Others v. Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,
New Delhi and Another (1980) 4 SCC 443 : [1981] 1
SCR 789 ; Mohan Lal v. Management of M/s Bharat
Electronics Limited (1981) 3 SCC 225 : [1981] 3 SCR
518 –  relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1981] 1 SCR 789
  relied on
Para 10
[1981] 3 SCR 518
  relied on
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Civil Appeal No. 3803
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2013 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in LPA No. 209 of 2011.
M. C. Dhingra, Ashwin Kr. Gupta, Gaurav Dhingra, Piyush Kant
Roy, Advs. for the Appellant.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
729
D. K. Thakur, AAG, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Adv. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. K. AGRAWAL J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment
and order dated 18.11.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in LPA No. 209 of 2011 whereby
the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein against
the judgment and order dated 07.07.2010 passed by learned single Judge
in CWP No. 3761 of 2009.
3.  Brief Facts:-
(a) Mohd. Ali-the appellant herein was engaged as Casual
Labourer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.