Once a worker accedes to the terms of a contractual appointment, they cannot revert to their previous employment status. The conditions for benefits under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 must be strictly interpreted and applied.

JUDGMENT :

Certain basic facts, which are not in dispute and as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner-workman, is that the petitioner, while giving a challenge to the award as rendered by the learned Labour Court on 15.03.2021, as a consequence of the Adjudication Case No.22 of 2017, “Director Horticulture Department and Others Vs. Kailash Chandra”, the learned Labour Court was referred to answer the question as to, “whether the act of respondent of dispensing the service of the petitioner, who was working as a Chowkidar w.e.f. 01.11.2016 was justified or not”. The said reference has been answered as against him by the learned Labour Court. Consequently, the writ-petition has been preferred.

2. Few basic facts, which have been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that, it is not in controversy, that the petitioner was initially appointed with the respondent as a daily-wager chowkidar on 01.02.2014 and his status of being a daily-wager employee continued so till his nature of appointment was converted into a contractual appointment by execution of a contract on 16.04.2015, which finds place on the record of this writ-petition as Annexure No.5 to the writ-petition.

3. The basic principle of law is, that as soon as the petitioner has acceded to the term of contractual appointment, which was executed on 16.04.2015 and the contract which was supposed to subsist for a period of one year, it would be deemed that he has acceded to the terms and conditions of the contractual appointment. In that eventuality, he cannot, later on, after the cessation of its period of contract revert back to plead, that his status would be determined as to be a daily-wager employee to be determined w.e.f. 01.02.2014. The logic behind it is that under the service jurisprudence a daily-wager enjoys the different status altogether, as compared to that of a contractual employee.

4. The contractual employee and its terms of employment are specifically governed under the terms of contract, which is inter se binding between the signatories to the contract, which was inclusive of the workman and his employer. The consequential effect of which would be, that as soon as the contract has been executed and the petitioner has acceded to the terms of contract, he looses his status of a daily-wager, which he initially enjoyed w.e.f. 01.02.2014, till the contract was executed on 15.04.2015.

5. Subsequent and as a consequence to the execution of the contract, is that the entire terms and conditions of the service, the remuneration, the consequential service benefits would be, as per the terms, which was entered into in the contract of 16.04.2015. It is not in controversy, at the hands of the present petitioner, that the said contract, as executed on 16.04.2015, it was for a period of one year only and that was supposed to expire on 16.04.2016 and so, it did.

6. The petitioner, thereafter, with the cessation of the terms of the contracts, which expired with the lapse of time on 16.04.2016, contends that he was permitted to continue to work as a chowkidar with the respondent–department which continues till 01.11.2016 as a daily-wager. Hence, he contends that the act of respondent of discontinuance of his service w.e.f. 01.11.2016, was in violation of the provisions as contained under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

7. For the said purpose, a reference to the provision contained under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 becomes necessary for its consideration. The relevant part of which is extracted hereunder:-

“Section 6-N. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen.- No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous 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 writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or the workman has been paid in lieu of such not