RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. versus INTEJAM ALI ZAFRI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 13-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT 
CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
INTEJAM ALI ZAFRI 
JULY 13, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Ss. 25(B), 25(F) and 33C(2): 
Casual worker-Retrenchment-Labour Court passing an award-
Affirmed by the Single Judge and also by Division Bench of the High Court-
A 
B 
c 
On appeal, Held: Since the worker in question worked only for 227 days in 
about 4 years period and not for 240 days in a calendar year, provision of D 
Section 2 5(F) not attracted-Hence, the award passed by the Labour Court 
quashed-However, payment in lieu of award, if mqde, shall not be recovered 
from the workman. 
The question which arose for determination before this Court in this 
appeal was as to whether in respect of a workman who claims to have completed E 
240 days of continuous service but allegedly completed only 227 days of scn•icc 
and whose services were terminated, provisions of Section 25(F) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act would be attracted. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Labour Court has held that the workman has worked for 
240 days. However, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is factually 
incorrect. The employer has placed material before this Court and also before 
F 
the Labour Court that the workman has worked only for 227 days in about 
four years. Sine~ the respondent has not worked for 240 days in a calendar 
year, the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not G 
attracted. The Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court 
have committed a mistake oflaw in ordering reinstatement with back wages 
etc. This apart, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is 
also non-speaking. It is the settled proposition of law that when the initial 
533 
H 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A appointment itself is void then the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial 
Disputes Act are not applicable while terminating the services of the 
workman. Hence, the award passed by the Labour Court is quashed and set 
aside. The proceedings before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) has 
become infructuous.1534-E; 535-B-C-D-E-FI 
B 
2. It is clarified that if any payment is made to the respondent during 
the pendency of appeal in this Court, the same shall not be recovered. 
1535-GJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6654 of2005. 
C 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.6.2004 of the High Court of 
D 
E 
Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in D.B. Civil Appeal (Writ) No. 369/2004 in 
S.B.W.P. No. 921012002. 
Shrish Kumar Misra and Jayant Mohan for the Appellants. 
Indra Makwana for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, .i. Heard Mr. Shrish Kr. Mishra, learned 
counsel for the appellants and Mr. Indra Makwana, learned counsel for the 
respondent-workman. 
We have perused the records and the order impugned in this appeal. 
The Labour Court has held that the appellant has worked for 240 days. In our 
opinion, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is factually incorrect. The 
appellant has placed material before us and also before the Labour Court that 
the workman has worked only for 227 days in about four years as per the 
following description as contained in para 5 of the reply to the statement of 
F claim:-
"December, 1987 
4 days 
January, 1988 
27 days 
February, 1988 
25 days 
March, 1988 
27 days 
G 
March, 1990 
23 days 
April, 1990 
23 days 
May, 1990 
20 days 
July, 1990 
18 days 
August, I 990 
18 days 
H 
December, 199 I 
14 days 
• 
RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVE. CORPN. L m. v. INTEJAM ALI ZAFRI [LAKSHMANAN, l] 535 
January, 1992 
February, 1992 
Total Days 
24 days 
04 days 
227 days" 
The respondent has not worked for 240 days in one calendar year which 
A 
is the condition precedent for attracting provisions of Section 25F of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This apart, the workman was a causal house B 
assistant who never worked for 240 days continuously in one calendar year. 
As per the provisions of Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, there 
should be working of 240 days in one calendar year. Hence, the provisions 
of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted in the instant 
case for the reason that the respondent worked only for 227 days in about C 
4 years period from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 28.12. 1987 to the 
date of termination i.e. 07 .02.1

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