S.S. Sodhi, J. - (1.) This Writ Petition arises from the application filed by the petitioner-workman under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming retrenchment benefits amounting to Rs. 1,440.
(2.) The facts relevant to this matter are that after retirement from service in the Law and Legislative Department of the Punjab Government, the petitioner was employed as a Steno-typist by the Punjab State Federation of Consumers Cooperative Wholesales Stores Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the Cooperative Store) on June 1968. He was employed on this post on daily wages. His services came to an end on March, 31, 1971, but with a Break of a day, he was again employed on daily wages from April 2, 1971 until his services were finally terminated on Oct. 15, 1974. In other words, the petitioner remained employed on daily wages from June 6, 1968 to Oct. 15, 1974 except for a break of one day on April 1, 1971.
(3.) After his services had been terminated, the petitioner was given the leave salary and the gratuity which he was entitled to His claim for one month's pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment benefits was, however, not acceded to by the Cooperative Store. Eventually, with the intervention of the Conciliation Officer, his claim for one month's wages in lieu of notice was also accepted and this amount was also paid. It was to recover his retrenchment benefits, that the petitioner was constrained to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court was called upon to adjudicate with regard to the question whether the petitioner was a workman and whether he was entitled to any retrenchment benefits, if so to what extent ? It was held that the petitioner was a workman, but his claim for retrenchment benefits was declined on the ground that he had not been in continuous service for a period of one year from the date of termination of his services. The view expressed being that "even if wages had not been paid for a single day it could be said that there was a break in service and he did not serve continuously for one year." This is clearly an erroneous view. "Continuous Service" is defined in Sec. 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is reproduced hereunder:- (1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, in clouding service which may be interrupted 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 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 (I) 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 days in any other case ; (b) for a period of six months, if the workman during a period of six 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) ninety five days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine ; and (ii) one hundred and twenty days in any other case. The case of the petitioner clearly falls under Sec. 25-B(2)(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act There being no dispute in this case that in each year of service that the petitioner rendered with the Cooperative Store he had worked for more than 240 days in the relevant 12 months period. The attention of the Labour Court does not appear to have been drawn to this provision of law. There is, thus, no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner had been in continuous service for the entire period in question.;