1. Employment for specified periods — Dispute over regularization based on 240 days of service — Termination under Section 6-N, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 950
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.P.Singh : P.B.Sawant
U.P.State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited
Versus
Taz Mulk Ansari
Case No. : 5416 of 1993
Date of Decision : 10/11/93
Workmen engaged for a specified period under an agreement are covered by the proviso to Section 6-N(a) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; thus, completing 240 days of service in a year does not automatically entitle them to regularization or notice of termination.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 6-N, proviso to clause (a) - Employment for a specified period - Termination of service - Mere completion of 240 days of service in a year does not entitle a workman to regularization of employment. (Para 2)
(B) Termination of service - Where workmen are engaged under an agreement for a specified period, no notice for terminating their service is necessary upon the expiry of said period under the proviso to clause (a) of Section 6-N. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Workmen were engaged under agreements for specified periods and had previously failed in a selection process. They were employed in short durations, typically three months, with the final term being 17 days. The lower court had granted regularization on the basis that the workmen had completed more than 240 days of service as daily-rated employees within a year.
Findings of Court:
The termination of services is valid as the workmen were engaged for specified periods, and the proviso to clause (a) of Section 6-N applies, making notice of termination unnecessary.
Issues: Whether the completion of 240 days of service in a year entitles workmen engaged for a specified period to regularization of employment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere service of 240 days in a year does not entitle a workman to regularization, especially when engaged for a specified period under an agreement, as such cases are covered by the proviso to Section 6-N(a) of the State Act.
Result: Appeal allowed and the decision of the lower court is set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether completion of 240 days of service entitles daily-rated employees to regularization despite being engaged for specified periods under agreement. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Mere service of 240 days in a year does not entitle a workman to regularization, particularly when employed for specified periods. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Termination is valid without notice if workmen are engaged under an agreement for a specified period per the proviso to Section 6-N, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 2 , 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order for regularization set aside — Termination of services held valid. (Para 3 )
6. Does completing 240 days of service in a year automatically entitle a workman to regularization?
No, the court held that mere service of 240 days in a year does not entitle a workman to regularization of his employment. (Para 2 )
7. Is notice required for terminating workmen engaged for a specified period under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act?
No, under the proviso to clause (a) of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, no notice for terminating the service of workmen engaged for a specified period is necessary. (Para 2 , 3 )
(1) LEAVE granted, Heard parties.
(2) IN view of the fact that the workmen were engaged under an agreement for a specified period, their case is covered by the proviso to clause (a) of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of this, it is unnecessary to go into the question as to whether the provisions of the central Act or of the State Act would apply in the present case. The High court by the impugned order has granted regularisation of the workmen on the ground that the workmen had put in more than 240 days as daily-rated employees in a year. There have since been decisions of this court which have taken the view that mere service of 240 days in a year does not entitle a workman to regularisation of his employment.
(3) IT is an admitted fact that the respondent-workmen had earlier appeared before the Selection Board and had failed in the selection. Thereafter, they approached the High court by the present writ petition, and the High court granted them regularisation in service on the only ground that they had put in more than 240 days of service in a year. The undisputed record shows that the respondent-workmen were every time employed at a time for only three months and their last employment was only for 17 days. Their service was to come to an end on the expiry of the said 17 days. In view of the proviso to clause (a) of Section 6-N no notice for terminating their service was necessary. The termination of their services is, therefore, valid. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the decision of the High court is set aside. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
