B.L.Yadav, J. - (1.) BY means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing award of the Labour Court, Ghaziabad in Adjudication Case No. 58 of 1962 and published on 18 -3 -86 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition). The facts of the case are few and simple and they are these. Respondent No. 2 was appointed on August 28, 1978 as Ring Cleaner in the Co -operative Textile Mill Ltd. Sahakari Nagar, Bulandshahr under the provisions of the Standing Orders of the Textile Mill, and has acquired status of a permanent workman. He was admitted in the Civil Hospital on 10 -11 -79 and remained there till 31 -1 -80. In the meantime the employer has terminated the services of respondent No. 2 from 15 -11 -79. This was done with a view to escape the liability of his retrenchment.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner, the employer, was that respondent No. 2 was appointed on 11 -1 -79 and not on 28 -8 -78 as alleged by him, as a temporary workman. But on account of heavy power cut in the supply of electricity to the Textile Mill about 150 workmen were retrenched. As the respondent No. 2 was not in continuous service for twelve calendar months his services were terminated with effect from 15 -12 -79. This was taken to be an illegal retrenchment. The State of U.P. assuming it to bean industrial dispute, made a reference under Section 4 -k of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court. Ghaziabad. The term of reference was whether the order dated 15 -12 -79 terminating the services of respondent No. 2 was proper or not, and if so, to which relief and compensation the respondent No. 2 was entitled. The Court gave its award in favour of respondent No. 2 and held that retrenchment of respondent No. 2 was illegal. Consequently, the services of respondent No. 1 was to be treated as continuous and he was entitled to all the benefits etc. The present petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid award. Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, appearing for the petitioner -employer urged that the Labour Court erred in holding respondent No. 2 to be in 'continuous service' for a period of one year and to have worked for 240 days. Whereas in fact, respondent No. 2 did not remain in employment for a period of one year nor he was in continuous service. It was further urged that the Labour Court has illegally held respondent No. 2 to be a permanent workman and that the retrenchment was illegal. In the alternative it was also urged that even if it is assumed that respondent No. 2 worked for a period of 240 days in a year but on that basis it cannot be said that he worked for a period of twelve calendar months. According to Sri Chauhan both the conditions must have been satisfied, namely, respondent No. 2 should have worked for twelve calendar months and he must have worked for not less than 240 days. He placed reliance on The Workmen of American Express International Banking Corporation v. Management of the International Express International Banking Corporation : 1985 (50) F.L.R. 481 (S.C.).
(3.) IN order to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is better to refer to the definition of 'continuous service' as given in Section 2(9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which reads as under: - - 2(9) 'Continuous Service' means uninterrupted service, and includes which may be interrupted merely on account of sickness or authorised 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, and a workman, who during the period of twelve calendar months has actually worked in an industry for not less than two hundred and forty days shall be deemed to have completed one year of continuous service in the industry.;