RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.versusINTEJAM ALI ZAFRI

                 RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT                                    A
                    CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
                               v.
                        INTEJAM ALI ZAFRI

                               JULY 13, 2006
                                                                                  B
    [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]


      Labour Laws:

      Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Ss. 25(B), 25(F) and 33C(2):                 c
       Casual worker-Retrenchment-Labour Court passing an award-
 Affirmed by the Single Judge and also by Division Bench of the High Court-
On appeal, Held: Since the worker in question worked only for 227 days in
about 4 years period and not for 240 days in a calendar year, provision of D
 Section 25(F) not attracted-Hence, the award passed by the Labour Court
 quashed-However, payment in lieu of award, if mqde, shall not be recovered
from the workman.

      The question which arose for determination before this Court in this
appeal was as to whether in respect of a workman who claims to have completed     E
240 days of continuous service but allegedly completed only 227 days of scn•icc
and whose services were terminated, provisions of Section 25(F) of the
Industrial Disputes Act would be attracted.

      Allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                                                  F
      HELD: 1. The Labour Court has held that the workman has worked for
240 days. However, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is factually
incorrect. The employer has placed material before this Court and also before
the Labour Court that the workman has worked only for 227 days in about
four years. Sine~ the respondent has not worked for 240 days in a calendar
year, the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not        G
attracted. The Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court
have committed a mistake oflaw in ordering reinstatement with back wages
etc. This apart, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is
also non-speaking. It is the settled proposition of law that when the initial
                                     533                                          H
    534                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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. Hence, the award passed by the Labour Court is quashed and set
    aside. The proceedings before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) has
    become infructuous.1534-E; 535-B-C-D-E-FI

B         2. It is clarified that if any payment is made to the respondent during
    the pendency of appeal in this Court, the same shall not be recovered.
                                                                          1535-GJ

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6654 of2005.
C         From the Judgment and Order dated 3.6.2004 of the High Court of
    Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in D.B. Civil Appeal (Writ) No. 369/2004 in
    S.B.W.P. No. 921012002.
           Shrish Kumar Misra and Jayant Mohan for the Appellants.
           Indra Makwana for the Respondent.
D          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, .i. Heard Mr. Shrish Kr. Mishra, learned
    counsel for the appellants and Mr. Indra Makwana, learned counsel for the
    respondent-workman.
          We have perused the records and the order impugned in this appeal.
E
    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 years as per the
    following description as contained in para 5 of the reply to the statement of
F   claim:-
          "December, 1987                       4 days
          January, 1988                         27 days
          February, 1988                        25 days
          March, 1988                           27 days
G         March, 1990                           23 days
          April, 1990                           23 days
          May, 1990                             20 days
          July, 1990                            18 days
          August, I990                          18 days
          December, 199 I                       14 days
H
     RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVE. CORPN. Lm. v. INTEJAM ALI ZAFRI [LAKSHMANAN, l] 535

        January, 1992                              24 days                              A
        February, 1992                             04 days
        Total Days                                 227 days"
•          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           B
    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           C
    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.
                                                                                        D
           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      E
    for the records concerned nor the respondent-workman moved an application
    before the Labour Court for summoning the records. The respondent-workman
    led no cogent and convincing evidence before the Labour Court. Accordingly,
    the award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
                                                                                        F
         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.      G
         In view of the order now passed, the proceedings before the Labour
    Court under Section 33C(2) has become infructuous.

    S.K.S.                                                          Appeal allowed.
                                                                                        H