Workmen who have rendered 240 days of service in the preceding period of 12 months are entitled to the protection of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, irrespective of the type of service rendered.

Satya Brata Sanyal, J. - The petitioners are employees of North Eastern Railway. They are casual labourers. They have been shut out from work. Their grievance is that the action of the respondent Railway authority is illegal and without jurisdiction. They pray for a writ of mandamus to allow them to work. The termination of their service by oral direction be ignored. They be given all consequential benefits. The illegalities alleged are non-compliance of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, breach of chapter XXV of the Indian Railways Establishment Manual as amended by the Railway Board's Circular No. PO-72/P LT-69/3 (1) dated 12.7.73.

2. The petitioners work has been stopped from 15.8.1991. They were employed on various dates. It is said that they are in continuous service for more than 240 days. Their initial employment is as masons. On the date of the termination of their service, work of Khalasi was being taken from them. The dates during which the petitioners worked as mason and the dates from which they served as Khalasi are as follows:

As Mason

Petitioner No. 1. 16.7.80 to 15.3.81.

Petitioner No. 2. 21.7.80 to 15.3.81.

Petitioner No. 3. 24.10.80 to 15.3.81.

Petitioner No. 4. 10.10.80 to 15.3.81.

Petitioner No. 5. 21.7.80 to 15.3.81.

Petitioner No. 6. 12.8.80 to 15.3.81.

Petitioner No. 1. 1.10.80 to 15.3.81.

Petitioner No. 2. 1.10.80 to 15.3.81.

As Khalasi

16.3.81 to 15.8.81.

All the petitioners.

3. The petitioners agreed to work on lower scale from 16.3.81, due to non-sanction of the post of mason, even though they became entitled to scale rate prior to that date in view of duration of their service. They, however, prayed that efforts be made to pay them the scale rate, but in the meanwhile their service be continued as Khalasi. According to respondents, this letter (Annexure-1) is of great significance and is decisive of the dispute. The relevant extract of the letter in English reads as follows:-

To

The Assistant Engineer,

Broad Gauge Line Construction,

Barauni.

Through Works Inspector,

Sahebpur Kamal, Camp Garhhara.

Sir,

We, the undersigned masons who were working under you for, the last 4, 6, 7, 8 months and had become entitled to receive scale rate or were likely to become so, give our consent to work as Khalasis due to non-sanctioning of the post of mason so that we can maintain our family and can serve the railway.

We hope that action also will be taken to pay us the scale rate and we may be continued in service (Sabko Barkarar Rakha Jai).

Date 16.3.81. Yours faithfully,"

4. Mr. Abhijit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that all the petitioners have been in continuous service for more than 240 days. Their service was uninterrupted within the meaning of section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. In spite of the same their services were terminated without following the procedure laid down under section 25E. Mr. Sinha learned counsel further contends that the petitioners have achieved the status of temporary servant by working continuously for four months in view of Railway Board's Letter No. P. C. 72/RLT-69/3 (1) dated 12.7.73 (Annexure 3) "Sub employment of casual labour on Railways". They, therefore, were entitled 14 days notice under paragraph 2302 of Railway Establishment Manual or notice pay therefor. The relevant portion of the circular which is relied upon by the counsel reads as hereunder:-

"It has been decided by Railway Board that casual labour other than those employed in 'Projects' should be treated as temporary after completion of four months continuous employment instead of six months as at present laid down in Board's letter no. E (NG) 60 CL 13 dated 22.8.62 (b) (1)."

The counsel also drew our attention to paragraph 2501 of Railway Establishment Manual. For these twin reason, the termination of the petitioners services is said to be null and void, entitling them to continuity of service with full back wages.

5. Mr. A. B. Ojha, learned counsel for the Railways, submitted t