UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus JUMMASHA DIWAN

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 541 · Decided: 19-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
i: 
JUMMASHA DIWAN 
OCTOBER 19, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
Labour laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25-N-Applicability a/-
Employment under a project-On closure of project, retrenchment of C 
workman-Application challenging retrenchment and seeking seniority on 
the ground of non-compliance o/Section 25-N and his having given continuous 
service for 1060 days-Dismissal of application-In Writ Petition termination 
set aside on the ground of non-compliance of Section 25-N-On appeal, 
held: In the facts of the case, workman not entitled to seniority-On closure D 
of the project, compliance of Section 25-N not required. 
Continuous service-Meaning of-Held: In a case where a casual 
employee is working in different establishments, though under the same 
employer, the concept of continuous service cannot be applied 
E 
The respondent-workman was employed under a project. On the project 
coming to an end, he was retrenched and was given retrenchment 
compensation in terms of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He 
filed application before Central Administrative Tribunal questioning the 
retrenchment on the ground that he having put in 1060 days of continuous 
service, should have been placed higher in seniority list, and that while passing F 
the order of retrenchment, the provisions of Section 25-N were not complied 
with. Tribunal dismissed the application. In Writ Petition, High Court set aside 
the order of termination in view of non-compliance of Section 25-N and directed 
his reinstatement. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. lfthe services ofa project employee is terminated, it is trite 
that statutory requirements of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 
are required to be complied with. 1543-F-G) 
54I 
G 
H 
542 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 
2. If the project came to a close, the requirements of Section 25-N of 
the Act were not required to be complied with. There are several 
establishments of the Railway Administration. lfa workman voluntarily gives 
up his job in one of the establishments and joins another, the same would not 
amount to his being in continuous service. When a casual employee is 
employed in different establishments, may be under the same employer, e.g., 
B the Railway Administration of India as a whole, having different administrative 
set up, different requirements and different projects, the concept of continuous 
service cannot be applied and it cannot be said that even in such a situation 
he would be entitled to a higher status being in continuous service. It is not 
in dispute that the establishment of Appellant No. 3 herein had started a 
C project. Recruitment of the respondent in the said establishment would, 
therefore, constitute a fresh employment. In a case of this nature, he would 
not be entitled to his seniority. [543-G-H; 544-A-C[ 
Lal Mohammad and Ors. v. Indian Railway Construction Co. ltd and 
Anr., (199911 SCC 596 and Oswal Agro Furane Ltd and Anr. v. Oswal Agro 
D Furane Workers Union and Ors., 120051 3 SCC 224, distinguished. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4552 of2006 
From the final Judgment and final Order dated 8.4.2005 of the High 
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in S.C.A. No. 1165/1998. 
R. Mohan, A.S.G. S. Wasim A. Qadri, B. Krishna Prasad and D.S. Mahra 
for the Appellants. 
S.C. Patel for the Respondent. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted. 
Respondent was appointed as a daily wager in the Railway Electrification 
Project at Vadodara Ratlam section. He was granted a temporary status. He 
G is said to have joined the Railway Electrification Project as a skilled worker 
under the Division~! Electrical Engineer, Western Railway (Overhead 
Equipment) Railway Electrification Railway Yard, Pratapnagar, Baroda, Appellant 
No. 3 herein. He was retrenched purportedly on the premise that railway 
electrification works at Vadodara Ratlam section came to an end. He was paid 
retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes 
H 
', 
.. 
U.0.1. v. JUMMASHA DIWAN [SINHA, J.] 
543 
Act, I 94 7 (for short "the Act"). 
A 
He filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal 
(Tribunal) questioning the purported retrenchment on the ground that he 
having put in 1060 days of continuous service should have been placed much 
higber in the seniority

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