General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs Rudhan Singh

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 26.5.2000, copy annexure P/14, vide which, respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity thereof and 50% back wages.

The respondent was employed on 16.3.1988. He worked upto 28.2.1989 and he issued a demand notice dated 24.8.1991. The Labour Court has held that the respondent had completed 240 days and, therefore, was entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the respondent is held to have worked for 240 days, the total service of the petitioner was not for one year and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of Seclion 25-F by virtue of the deeming provision of having worked for one year, as contemplated in Section 25-B of the Act.

Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, . The Supreme Court in that case has held that before a workman can be considered to have completed one year of continuous service in an Industry, It must be shown first that he was employed for a period of not less than 12 calendar months and next that during those 12 calendar months had worked for not less than 240 days.

In the case of Surendra Kumar Verma and Others Vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, New Delhi and Another, , Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala were in the employment of the Bank from May 4, 1974 to January 29, 1975 and had worked for 258 and 266 days respectively. The Supreme Court has considered the judgment in the case of Sur Enamel & Stamping Works Ltd. (supra). After considering the amendment of Section 25-B of the Act, the Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Verma has come to the following conclusion.

"Act 36 of 1964 has drastically changed the position Section 2(eee) has been repealed and Section 25-B(2) now begins with the clause "where a workman is not in continuous service.... for a period of one year". These changes brought about by Act 36 of 1964 appear to be clearly designed to provide that a workman who has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days during a period of twelve months shall be deemed to have been in continuous service for a period one year whether or not he has in fact been in such continuous service for a period of one year. It is enough that he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 months; it is not necessary that he should have been in the service of the employer for one whole year. So we hold that Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala are in the same position as the other appellant."

This observation was made by Hon. O. Chinnappa Reddy, J., Hon. R.S. Pathak, J. who was also member of the three Judges Bench has also observed as under :-

"On the other question decided by my learned brother. I have no hesitation in agreeing that having regard to the simultaneous amendments introduced in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by Act No. 36 of 1964 - the deletion of Section 2(eee) and the substitution of the present Section 25B for the original section - it is no longer necessary for a workman to show that he has been in employment during a preceding period, of twelve calendar months in order to qualify within the terms of Section 25-B. It is sufficient for the purposes of Section 25(b)(a)(ii) that he has actually worked for not less than 240 days during the proceeding period of 12 calendar months. The law declared by this Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works (P) Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, , does not apply for situations governed by the subsequently substituted Section 25B of the Act."

It may be observed that the judgment in the case of Sur Enamel & Stamping Works Ltd. (supra) was delivered by a Bench of three Judges and the judgment in the case of Surendra Kumar Verma is also of a three Judges Bench. The subsequent judgment has explained the view taken by the earlier judgment and has given the above mentioned opinion on the effect of the law after the amendment of the Section. The later judgment, therefore, shall prevail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Om Parkash and Another, in which it has been observed as under :-

"...The second question is whether there was a violation of Section 25-F of the Act. The authority below has come to the conclusion that he had worked for a period from 10.8.1985 to 30.6.1986 which would be less than one year, he had worked for a period form 10.8.1995 to 30.6.1986 which would be less than one year. ''Therefore, the authority was wrong in concluding that he had worked for 240 days during 12 months immediately preceding the date of cessation of work. Besides no information was laid before the authority as to how many days during that period he had worked for, but in any case, he had not worked for 12 calendar months. There is also no evidence that he had worked for 240 days to satisfy Section 25-B of the Act. Therefore, the authority was wrong in coming to the conclusion that there was a violation of Section 25-F of the Act...."

In the case of Om Parkash (supra) the question of necessary of actual span of service to be of minimum one year has not been dealt with in details.

A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Amar Singh Yadav and Another Vs. Shanti Devi and Others, , has held as under:-

"24. To conclude on this aspect, it is held that where there is a direct conflict betwixt two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered by co-equal Benches, the High Court must follow that judgment which appears to it to state the law more elaborately and accurately. The answer to question (1) posed at the out set is rendered in these terms."

Moreover, in the case of Mattulal Vs. Radhe Lal, , it has been held by the Supreme Court that when there are contradictory decisions of the Supreme Court, the former decision of a Larger Bench should be followed. In view of this position of law, as laid down by the Supreme Court and the Full Bench of Patna High Court, the view taken in the case of Surendra Kumar Verma (supra) will be binding on us. As a result the stand taken by the learned State counsel cannot be accepted.

No other ground has been argued.

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.