Under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, a workman is entitled to reinstatement if he has completed 240 days of continuous employment in one unit.

1. - The petitioner No. 1 - Sarvajanik Nirman Mazdoor Sangh, Bhilwara, has filed this petition for its members - Bheru son of Hardeo and Zahir Mohammed son of Taj Mohammed, the petitioners No. 2 and 3 respectively, against the award of the Labour Court, Udaipur dated 16.4.1984, whereby the learned Labour Judge rejected the reference.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error in dismissing the reference of the workman. He submitted that the Labour Court has committed an error in relying upon the judgment of this Court in Mahi Karmchari Sangh v. State of Rajasthan, (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1186/81, decided on 13.4.1982), as facts of this case were totally different than the facts of this case. He further submitted that the point in question is fully covered by two judgments of this Court. One of a Division Bench, in D.B. Civil Special Appeal 25/91, decided on 1.10.1991 and, another one, of learned Single Judge V.G. Palshikar, J., in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1586/84 (Mangi Lal v. State of Raj. ), decided on September 13, 1994, who has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench (supra) while allowing the petition.

3. In the Single Bench matter, it was in dispute that the workman completed 240 days under one employer. He was employed with one Assistant Engineer for some days and with another Assistant Engineer for some days. The learned Single Judge relying upon the observations made by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment, held that the order of retrenchment of that petitioner was un-sustainable in law and, therefore, set aside the same. The Division Bench has held in its judgment that merely because the petitioner worked in different sub-divisions of the same department, will not make any difference and the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act ought to have been followed.

4. One more judgment, is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, which is reported in 1991(1) RLW 31 (Hem Kumar v. State of Raj.) , wherein also a learned Single Judge of this Court held that though the services of the petitioner may be under various schemes, but he was under the service of respondent No. 4, as such, the continuation of the petitioner under various schemes will be of no avail as the order does not say that appointment of the petitioner is under the particular scheme only and it will be subject to expiry of the scheme. It may be stated that the learned Single Judge himself has thereafter observed that - ''If that were so, perhaps the respondent would have taken a benefit of section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. But the order which have been issued from time to time does not say so''.Therefore, under that circumstances, the learned Single Judge held that the termination of the services of the petitioner was in violation of Section 25-F of the Act.

5. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that both the workmen have completed 240 days but the dispute is that they have not completed 240 days continuously in one unit. Initially they were appointed in the workshop of Electricity Sub Division, Bhilwara, in November, 1977 and they were in that workshop till July 1978. Thereafter, from August, 1978, they were on the muster roll of East City, Bhilwara and their services were terminated at Electricity Sub-Division, Bhilwara. From February, 1979, till March, 1979, they continue to work on the muster roll of East City, Bhilwara Sub-Division and thereafter they were again appointed in the Electricity Sub-Division, Bhilwara and they worked there till May, 1980. Thereafter, without any order in writing, by an oral order, they have been removed from service. It is to be noted that the petitioners have not placed their appointment orders before this Court but, from the facts stated above, it clearly appears that their appointment was by several different appointment orders in different units from time to time and it is also not di