Judgment On Board

1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by learned Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 35/ID Act, Reference/2019 dated 5.10.2023 whereby reference was answered in negative and the statement of claim filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2) Facts of present case as per statement of claim are that petitioner was appointed as daily rated employee on the post of Chowkidar under respondent No. 3 in July, 2010 and his services were discontinued in October, 2018 contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act of 1947’]. Conciliation proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and matter was referred to learned Labour Court under Section 10 of Act of 1947.

3) In the statement of claim, petitioner pleaded that he worked continuously from July, 2010 till October, 2018 under respondent No. 3 prior to termination of his services. Respondent No. 3 filed reply and pleaded that engagement of petitioner was contingent in nature. Petitioner examined himself and exhibited bank pass-book to establish that he worked under respondent No. 3 continuously for period of eight years whereas respondent No. 3 examined Chuneshwari Aditi Shivne, Deputy Divisional Manager, who deposed that engagement of the workman was temporary in nature and he never worked for 240 days continuously in a calender year preceding the date of termination. Learned Labour Court held that workman failed to establish that he worked continuously for period of 240 days in a calender year preceding the date of termination and dismissed the statement of claim.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner exhibited bank pass-book to demonstrate that he worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calender year and wages were being paid to him regularly in the bank account directly. He further submits that respondent No. 3 failed to adduce documentary evidence to substantiate that workman was never engaged by it or the nature of engagement was temporary. He prays to allow this petition.

5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that respondent No. 3 examined its witness who proved that workman did not work 240 days in a calender year and learned Labour Court rightly rejected the claim of petitioner.

6) Learned State counsel would support the contention made by Mr. Ahluwalia.

7) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

8) It has been well settled legal position that for getting protection of Section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it is incumbent on the part of the workman to plea and prove the continuous 240 days service preceding date of termination. Section 25(B) defines continuous service and Section 25 provides grant of retrenchment compensation to the workman.

9) Sections 25-B and 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act are extracted below:-

" 25B. Definition of continuous service . For the purposes of this Chapter,--

(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman;

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer--

(a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than--

(i) one hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty d