- (1.) In the context of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, does it amount to retrenchment if after repeated ad hoc appointments for specified short spells with notional breaks, the period of service exceeds 240 days in the preceding 12 months and the workmen's services are thereafter terminated? Herein lies the controversy raised.
(2.) Prabhu Narain Rai and Suresh Tewari were appointed as clerks on ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days. The first of such appointment was made in September, 1983, On the expiry of this period, after a short break, another such fresh appointment was made and this continued till the year 1985, when their services were eventually terminated and they were given no further appointment. Admittedly by that time, both had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months. No retrenchment compensation had been paid to them. The issue thus, arises is whether they were entitled to retrenchment compensation? This in turn, being dependent upon the finding whether or not such termination of services was retrenchment in terms of Section 6-N of the Act.
(3.) A similar question arose before the Division Bench in Jai Kishan v. U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd., Lucknow 1989 2 UPLBEC 144 where it was held that a workman would be taken to be in continuous service if he has worked for not less than 240 days during the preceding 12 months period. The case there too was of repeated appointments for 89 days each with short breaks of a few days between each appointment. It was held that the cessation of their employment, rendered applicable to them the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act. The employers, it was observed, should not shirk their liability in giving the benefits which may accrue to a workman by virtue of this provision of law. In other words, it was held to be retrenchment and consequently on the termination of the services of the workmen, they were held to be entitled to payment of retrenchment benefits.;