RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPN LTD Vs. INTEJAM ALI ZAFRI
LAWS(SC)-2006-7-68
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on July 13,2006

RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
INTEJAM ALI ZAFRI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

REGIONAL MANAGER VS. ANURAG SHARMA [LAWS(MPH)-2020-1-237] [REFERRED TO]
GAJENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-3-173] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF BARODA VS. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(GJH)-2006-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
K.V.ANIL MITHRA VS. SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-79] [REFERRED TO]
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. K LAKSHMINARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-2014-6-47] [REFERRED TO]
RANGE FOREST OFFICER, REWARI AND ANOTHER VS. RAM CHANDER AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2009-9-181] [REFERRED]
BABUBHAI C. AHIR VS. GUJARAT ENERGY TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2022-11-1137] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-1-98] [REFERRED TO]
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS MARKET COMMITTEE VS. PIYUSH M SUKHADIA [LAWS(GJH)-2008-2-214] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. SANJAY E DOLASKAR POST KOLGAON [LAWS(BOM)-2009-6-140] [REFERRED TO]
B.V.V. RAMANA RAO VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2022-12-102] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL FERTILISERS LTD VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-3-67] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER VS. KARAMJIT SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2019-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
M P URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD VS. SANTOSH KUMAR DUBEY [LAWS(MPH)-2009-1-93] [REFERRED TO]
BANK OF BARODA VS. H D DHOBI [LAWS(GJH)-2011-7-232] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, J. - (1.)HEARD Mr. Shrish Kr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Indra Makwana, learned counsel for the respondent-workman.
(2.)WE have perused the records and the order impugned in this appeal. The Labour Court has held that the appellant has worked for 240 days. In our opinion, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is factually incorrect. The appellant has placed material before us and also before the Labour Court that the workman has worked only for 227 days in about four yea's as per the following description as contained in para 5 of the reply to the statement of claim :- JUDGEMENT_229_JT7_2006Html1.htm
The respondent has not worked for 240 days in one calendar year which is the condition precedent for attracting provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 This apart, the workman was a causal house assistant who never worked for 240 days continuously in one calendar year. As per the provisions of Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, there should be working of 240 days in one calendar year. Hence, the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted in the instant case for the reason that the respondent worked only for 227 days in about 4 years period from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 28.12.1987 to the date of termination i.e. 07.02.1992. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge as also the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have committed a mistake of law in ordering reinstatement with back wages etc. This apart, the order passed by the Division Bench is also non-speaking.

As already noticed, it is the settled proposition of law that when the initial appointment itself is void then the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable while terminating the services of the workman. The respondent-workman has also not placed before the Labour Court the relevant documents and not even summoned the records before the Labour Court. It is seen from the records that neither the Labour Court called for the records concerned nor the respondent- workman moved an application before the Labour Court for summoning the records The respondent-workman led nc cogent and convincing evidence before thin Labour Court. Accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.)FOR the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order of reinstatement and back wages passed by the courts below. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. No costs.
We make it clear that if any payment is made to the respondent during the pendency of appeal in this Court, the same shall not be recovered.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.