9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of termination of workmen under Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Interpretation of "continuous service" under Section 2(g) of the UP Act. 3. Entitlement to back wages upon reinstatement. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Termination: The appellant terminated the services of the respondents and other workmen on 31st March 1987, claiming they were casual workers with insufficient work. The workmen contested this termination, leading the State Government to refer the matter to the Labour Court under Section 4(k) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (UP Act). The Labour Court found that none of the workmen had worked for 240 days in the year preceding their termination, thus denying them protection under Section 6N of the UP Act. However, it was also found that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in each year from 1983 to 1986. The Labour Court concluded that the workmen were not entitled to continuous service benefits under the UP Act due to their failure to meet the 240-day requirement in the year immediately preceding their termination. 2. Interpretation of "Continuous Service": The High Court overturned the Labour Court's decision, ruling that under Section 6N read with Section 2(g) of the UP Act, it was unnecessary for the workmen to complete 240 days in the year immediately preceding their termination. The High Court held that since the workmen had completed 240 days in earlier calendar years, they were deemed to be in continuous service, making their termination illegal under Section 6N. The appellant argued that the workmen needed to complete 240 days in the 12 months preceding their termination to claim continuous service. However, the Supreme Court noted that Section 2(g) of the UP Act does not specify the requirement of working 240 days in the "preceding" 12 months, unlike the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). The Court emphasized that welfare legislation should be interpreted broadly to benefit the working class, rejecting the appellant's narrow interpretation. 3. Entitlement to Back Wages: The High Court directed the reinstatement of the workmen with consequential service benefits but denied back wages. The respondents challenged this denial, but the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. Given the financial position of the appellant and ongoing proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, the Court found no reason to interfere with the denial of back wages. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the termination of the workmen violated Section 6N read with Section 2(g) of the UP Act. The respondents were ordered to be reinstated from November 2003 and to be paid wages from that month onward. The Court emphasized a broad interpretation of welfare legislation to protect workers' rights, rejecting the appellant's restrictive interpretation of continuous service requirements. No costs were awarded.
|
