EMPJ, OYERS IN RELATION TO DIGW ADIB COLLIERY A v.

THEIR WORKMEN

March 22, 1965

[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. W ANCHOO.: M. HIDAYATULLAH

AND V. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Ind.w; trial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), ss. 25B and 25F-Continuous servi'ce, meaning of.

A bad!i workman worked as the appellant's employee for more than 240 days, with interruptions in each of the calendar years 1959 and 1960. He was retrenched in 1961. An industrial dispute having arisen, it was referred to the Tribunal, which held, that the appellant was not justified in terminating the services of the workman as the provisions of s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with.

Tn its appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the section could a.pply only if the workman had put in 240 days' conti. nuous service in any of the years 1959 and 1960.

HELD: Section 25B says that, for the purpose of s. 25F a workman who, in a period of 12 calendar months has actually worked for not less than 240 days shall be deemed to have completed one year of continuous service. Service for 240 days in a period of 12 calendar

months is equal not only to service for a year but is to be deemed continuous service even if interrupted. Therefore, though s. 25F speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the. employer, both the conditions are fulfilled if the workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months. It is not necessary to read the definition of continuous service in s. 2(eee)

into s. 25B, because, the fiction converts service of 240 days in a period of the twelve calendar months intn continuous service for one complete year. [451C-E]

The amendments introduced by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1964 into ss. 25B and 25F only removed the discordance between the unamended sections 25B and 25F (b) and vagueness which existed previously. But neither before the amendments nor after, is uninterrupted service necessary, if the total service is 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months. [ 452D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1964.

Appeal by special leave from the award dated August 3, 1962 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad in Reference No. 56 of 1961.

B. Sen and I.N. Shroff, for the appellants.

The respondent did not appear. ;, ; Sfhe Judgment of the Court was delivered by 'ifldayatullah, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the Award dated August 3, 1962, of the Central Government Indus- -··- tria} Tril:>unal Dhanbad, under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947

,! -- 448 ..

DIGWADIH COLLIERY v. WOI\KME-'< (llidayatuUah, J.) 449

The appellants are the Employers in relation to Digwadih Col liery and the respondents their workmen. The workmen did not appear in this Court. The dispute was whether the management of the colliery was just'fied in terminating the services of Jaldhar Singh with back wages.

Jaldhar Singh was a 'bad!i' workman which means (as defined hy the Standing Orders of the colliery) a person appointed in the post of a permanent employee or probationer who is temporarily absent. He worked as badli in the cafondar years 1959 and 1960 in d; fferent capacities. His employment was, of course, not continuom

and there were six breab of one day to a week in 1959 and eight hreaks of one day to a week in 1960. However, he worked for more

than 240 days in each calendar year though with these interruptions.

In January 1961 the colliery terminated Jaldhar Singh's services

without notice to him or payment of wages ; n lieu of notice or compensation. A dispute arising, conciliation was attempted but foiled and the reference followed.

Before the Tribunal the workmen claimed that Jaldhar Singh was a permanent wh'le the Employers contended that he was temporary. The Employers stated that as some of the perma nent staff had become surplus, there was no need of badli workmen and the term'nation of Jaldhar Singh's service was justified.

The workmen attempted to prove that Jaldhar Singh was permanent from 1960 and produced some documents from which they

asked that this inference be drawn but the Tribunal did not agree.

The workmen relied in the altcrnat; ve upon s. 25F of the Act be

cause Jaldhar Singh had put in service of 240 days in each of the years and contended that as the Employers had failed to comply with the provisiocs of s. 25F the termination of service was illegal' and unjust'fied. The Employers submitted that s. 25F could apply only if Jaldhar Singh had put in 240 days' continuous service in any of the years 1959 or 1960.

The service of Jaldhar Singh was admittedly terminated as there was no work for him and not on account of disciplinary action or voluntary retirement, superannuation or ill-health. This

was thus a case of retrenchment as defined in s. 2(00) of the Act.

Section 25F, which was inserted as part of Chapter VA, with effect from October 24; 1953 by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment)

Act 1953 (43 of 1953) provides:

"25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.

No workman employed in any industry who has been in

cont; nuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-

(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in

wrting indicating the reasons for retrenchment and

the period of notice expired, or the workman bas

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1965] 3 e.c.R,

been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period A of the notice:

Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service;

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to .fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of

service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and

(c) notice .in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government."

The section, if it applied, had plainly not been complid with in

respect of any of the conditions precedent. faldhar Singh, as seen already, had not been given any notice or wages in lieu of notice or paid compensation and no notice had been served on the appro priate Government. The termination of service would, in these circumstances, be illegal. But the Employers pointed out that s. 25F required two conditions: (a) continuous service and (b) service for

not less than one year, and contended that these conditions were not fulfilled as the service was not continuous but broken.

They relied on the definition of "continuous service" in s. l(eee) which was introduced by the same amending Act:

"2(eee) continuous service means uninterrupted service, and includes service which may be interrupted merely on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a sqike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;"

The workmen, on the other hand, relied upon the provisions of s. 25B which read:

"25B. Definition of one year of continuous service.

For the purposes of sections 25C and 25F, a workman who, during a period of 12 calendar months, has actually worked in an industry for not less than two hundred and forty days shall be deemed to have completed orie vear of continuous service in the industry.

Explanation.-In computing the number of days on which a workman has actually worked in any industry, the days on which-

{a) he has been laid off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Em ployment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, or under this Act or under any other law applicable to the industrial establishment, the largest number of days during

DIGWADIH COLLIERY v. WORKMEN (Hidayatullah, J.) 451

which he has been so laid-off being taken into account for the purposes of this clause,

(b) he has been on leave with full wages, earned in

previous year, and

(c) in the case of a female, she has been on maternity

leave; so however that the total period of such maternity leave shall not exceed twelve weeks, shall be included."

The definit'.ons in s. 2 of the Act do not apply if there is any thing repugnant in the subject or context and the question is whether the definition of "continuous service" can at all apply in considering s. 25F when what is incant by the expression "one year of continuous service" in s. 25F is, by s. 25B specially stated. If s. 25B had not been enacted the contention of the Employers would

have been unanswerable for the words of s. 25F would then have plainly meant that the service should be for a period of 12 months without interruptions other than those stated in s. 2(eee) itself. But

s. 25B says that for the purpose of s. 25F a workman who, in a period of twelve calendar months has actually worked for not less than 240 days shall be deemed to have completed one year of cQntinuous service. Service for 240 days in a period of twelve calendar

months is equal not only to service for a year but is to be deemed continuous service even if interrupted. .Therefore, though s. 25F

speaks of continuous service for not less than one year under the employer, both conditions are fulfilled if the workman has actually

worked for 240 days during a period of twelve calendar months.

It is not necess"ry to read the definition of continuous service into s. 25B because the fiction converts service of 2@ days in a period of twelve calendar mon.ths into continuous service for one complete year.

Mr. B. Sen drew our attention to the Indul; trial Disputes <Amendment) Act 1964 which was passed last December. By s. 2(iii) of the amending Act of 1964 clause (eee) of the second sec

tion of the principal Act was omitted and bys. 13, for s. 25B in the princ; pal Act the following was substituted:

"25B. For the purposes of this Chapter,-

(!) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service

for a period if he is, for that period, in µninterrupted service, including service which may be intermptei on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within

the meaning of clause (!) for a period of one year

452 SUl'llEME COURT REPORTS tl965j 3 3.C, It.

, he shall be deemed o be in continuous service under an employer-

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during

a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to

be made, has actually worked under the employer for not Jess than-

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of

a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other

case;

The Explanation to s. 25B is the same, mutatis mutandis as before.

Mr. Sen contended that the change in the Jaw brought out his contention. We do not agree. The amended s. 25B only consolidates the previous, sections 25B and 2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters which are not relevant to the present purpose, but the purport of the new provisions is not different. In fact the amendment of s. 25F of the principal Act by substituting in cl. (bi the words "for every completed year of continuous service" for the words "for every completed year of service" now removes a discordance between the unamended section 25B and the unamended

cl. (b) of s. 25B. Neither before these several changes nor after is uninterrupted service necessary if the total service is 240 days in

a period of calendar months. The only change in the new Act is that this service must be during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made. The last amendment now removes a vagueness which. existed in the unamended s. 25B.

We accordingly hoH that the decision under appeal is correct. rhe appeal fails' and is dismissed. ·

Appeal dismis, sed. ·