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

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. A. R. Lakshmanan
Lokeshwar Singh Pant
Judgment Date: 2006-07-13
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The Labour Court's award is quashed and set aside; the pendency under Section 33C(2) is infructuous; any payment made during pendency shall not be recovered.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.
Anr.

Respondents

Intejam Ali Zafri

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shrish Kumar Misra

Counsels for Respondents

• Indra Makwana

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal concerns a casual worker under the Industrial Disputes Act whose retrenchment was challenged as illegal under Sections 25-B, 25-F and 33-C(2). The respondent worked for the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation from December 28, 1987 to February 7, 1992, and his case progressed through Labour Court, a High Court Division Bench, and finally the Supreme Court. The Labour Court initially held that the workman had completed 240 days of work, a finding upheld by the High Court, which ordered reinstatement with back wages. The Supreme Court, however, held that the Labour Court’s finding of 240 days was factually incorrect: the workman had, in fact, worked only 227 days over approximately four years according to the record. Because the worker did not complete 240 days in any calendar year, the protections of Section 25-F were not attracted. The Court also noted that the initial appointment itself was void, rendering Section 25-F inapplicable upon termination. Consequently, the Labour Court’s award was quashed and set aside, and the pendency under Section 33-C(2) was rendered infructuous. The Court clarified that any payment made during the appeal would not be recovered. The decision narrows the applicability of 25-F to casual workers and reinforces the necessity of an operative initial appointment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants argued that the employee did not complete 240 days in a calendar year, having worked only 227 days over about four years; hence Section 25F is not attracted. They contended that the initial appointment was void, so Section 25F cannot be invoked on termination. The High Court's reinstatement with back wages was incorrect and the Division Bench's order non-speaking; the Labour Court proceedings under Section 33C(2) are infructuous; any payment during pendency should not be recovered.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-workman contended for relief under Section 25F, challenging the ongoing award and seeking reinstatement with back wages; The arguments supported by the Labour Court’s finding of 240 days and the applicable remedy under the Act (as per the respondent).

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A # RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. _v._ INTEJAM ALI ZAFRI JULY 13, 2006 B [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] ## _Labour Laws:_ _Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Ss. 25(B), 25(F) and 33C(2):_ _Casual worker-Retrenchment-Labour Court passing an awardAffirmed by the Single Judge and also by Division Bench of the High CourtOn 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 2 5(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 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:- G H |claim:-|| |---|---| |"December,1987|4days| |January,1988|27days| |February,1988|25days| |March,1988|27days| |March,1990|23days| |April,1990|23days| |May,1990|20days| |July,1990|18days| |August,I990|18days| |December,199I|14days| • RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVE. CORPN. L m. _v._ INTEJAM ALI ZAFRI [LAKSHMANAN, l] 535 |RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVE. CORPN. LTOURISM DEVE. CORPN. LDEVE. CORPN. LCORPN. L|RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVE. CORPN. LTOURISM DEVE. CORPN. LDEVE. CORPN. LCORPN. LLm._v._INTEJAM ALI ZAFRI [LAKSHMANAN, l]ALI ZAFRI [LAKSHMANAN, l]ZAFRI [LAKSHMANAN, l][LAKSHMANAN, l]|INTEJAM ALI ZAFRI [LAKSHMANAN, l]ALI ZAFRI [LAKSHMANAN, l]ZAFRI [LAKSHMANAN, l][LAKSHMANAN, l]l]535| |---|---|---| |January,1992|24days|A| |February,1992|04days|| |TotalDays|227days"|| 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. 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. **F** 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**