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

- **Citation:** [2006] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 533
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2006-07-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6654 of2005
- **Bench:** Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Lokeshwar Singh Pant A
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rajasthan-tourism-development-corporation-ltd-and-anr-v-intejam-ali-zafri-21470
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

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 CourtA
B
c
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 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
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
F
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

## Text

RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
v.
INTEJAM ALI ZAFRI
JULY 13, 2006
[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 CourtA
B
c
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 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
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
F
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
D
E
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.
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.
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, I 990
18 days
H
December, 199 I
14 days
•
RAJASTHAN TOURISM DEVE. CORPN. L m. v. INTEJAM ALI ZAFRI [LAKSHMANAN, l] 535
January, 1992
February, 1992
Total Days
24 days
04 days
227 days"
The respondent has not worked for 240 days in one calendar year which
A
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.
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
D
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.
We make it clear that if any payment is made to the respondent during
F
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