WORKMEN OF PURE KUSTORE COLLIERY Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed by the workmen of Pure Kustore Colliery represented by Khan Mazdoor Congress under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying tha,t an award given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Jabbalpur, dated 10 August 1967, in Reference No. 30 of 1964 (Dhanbad Tr.)/Reference No. CGIT/LC (R) (16)/67 (Jabbalpur Tribunal), be quashed, An industrial dispute has been referred for adjudication and the issue was to the following' effect: Whether the termination of services of the following workmen with effect from 30 December 1963 lay the management of Pure Kustore Colliery was justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled ? -

(2.) The tribunal has held that the employer had duly complied with Section 25G - of the Act, as these workmen were juniormost workmen employed. On the interpretation of Section 25F read with Section 25B of the Act, the tribunal has held that as no one of the concerned workmen had put in one year's service, Section 25F was not attracted. Although in interpreting Section 25B reference was made by the presiding officer to the Act as it now stands, the ultimate conclusion was not affected, because of the finding that the workmen had not put in one year's service.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Sections 25B and 25P of the Act and has contended that any of these thirteen workmen who had worked for 240 days before 30 December 1953 was entitled to the benefit of Section 25F, even if he was not in service for twelve calendar months before retrenchment. It is now clear that the question has been settled by the Supreme Court in two cases, where Sections 25B and 25F have been considered and these decisions are Sur Enamel and Stamping Works, Ltd. v. their workmen 1963 -II L.L.J. 367 and Digwadih Colliery v. their workmen 1965 -II L.L.J. 118. The interpretation of Section 25F of the Act was given by the Supreme Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works case 1963 -II L.L.J. 367 (vide supra) in connexion with the employees named Nagan Bora and Manoharan. With reference to Section 62F of the Act their lordships have stated thus at p. 370: On the plain terms of the section only a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer is entitled to its benefit.... Thereafter, their lordships have considered the periods of employment and have stated thus at p. 370: ... The position therefore is that during a period of employment for less than eleven calendar months these two persons worked for more than 240 days. In our opinion, that would not satisfy the requirement of Section 25B. Before a workman can be considered to have completed one year of continuous service in an industry it must be shown first that he was employed for a period of not less than twelve calendar months, and next that during those twelve calendar months had worked for not less than 240 days. Whereas in the present case, the workmen have not at all been employed for a period of twelve calendar months it becomes unnecessary to examine whether the actual days of work numbered 240 days or more. For, in any case, the requirements of Section 25B would not be satisfied by the mere fact of the number of working days toeing not less than 240 days. This decision clearly indicates that the approach made by the presiding officer of the tribunal was a correct one when he stated that none of the concerned workmen can get the retrenchment benefits, because they had not put in one year's service. This matter has been considered by the Supreme Court also in the case of Digwadih Colliery 1965 -II L.L.J. 118 mentioned above. Their lordships have dealt with the arguments advanced on the amendment made in Section 25B of the Act in 1964 and have stated that the amended Section 25B only consolidates the previous Sections 25B and 2(eee) in one place, of course, adding some other matter. The only change which has been made in Section 25F (B) has been referred to by their lordships. Therefore, the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works case 1963 -II L.L.J. 367 (vide supra) is conclusive on the question that before the workmen concerned in this case could claim the benefits of the provisions of Section 25F, they had to show that they were in continuous service for not less than one year, and as none of these workmen were in service for twelve calendar months, their claim under Section 25F has rightly failed.