http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4552 of 2006

PETITIONER: Union of India & Ors

RESPONDENT: Jummasha Diwan

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/10/2006

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 7337 of 2006]

S.B. SINHA, J :

       Leave granted.                  Respondent was appointed as a daily wager in the Railway  Electrification Project at Vadodara Ratlam section. He was granted a  temporary status.  He is said to have joined the Railway Electrification  Project as a skilled worker under the Divisional Electrical Engineer, Western  Railway (Overhead Equipment) Railway Electrification Railway Yard,  Pratapnagar, Baroda, Appellant No. 3 herein.  He was retrenched  purportedly on the premise that railway electrification works at Vadodara  Ratlam section came to an end.  He was paid retrenchment compensation in  terms of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the  Act").   

       He filed an original application before the Central Administrative  Tribunal (Tribunal) questioning the purported retrenchment on the ground  that he having put in 1060 days of continuous service should have been  placed much higher in the seniority list and, thus, could not have been  retrenched having regard to the principle of "last come first go".  It was also  contended that while passing an order of retrenchment, the provisions of  Section 25-N of the Act was not complied with.   

       The Tribunal dismissed the said original application.  A writ petition  came to be filed wherein the same pleas were raised by Respondent herein.   Invoking Section 25-N of the Act, the impugned judgment has been passed  setting aside the order of termination and directing reinstatement of  Respondent.  

       Mr. R. Mohan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on  behalf of Appellants inter alia submitted that the provisions of Section 25-N  of the Act will have no application to the facts and circumstances of the  case.

       Mr. S.C. Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent, on  the other hand, submitted that Respondent having put in 1060 days of  continuous service, the order of retrenchment was vitiated in law.  It had  been pointed out that different benches of the Central Administrative  Tribunal on almost identical issues had taken different views and in that  view of the matter, the impugned judgment should not be interfered with.   

       Respondent indisputably had started working under Appellant No. 3  1986.  His services had been terminated inter alia on the premise that the  electrification project had come to a close.  If the services of a project  employee is terminated, it is trite that statutory requirements of Section 25-F

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

of the Act are required to be complied with, but, indisputably, Respondent  was given one month’s notice pay as also the retrenchment compensation in  compliance thereof.   

       His name might not have appeared in the seniority list of the casual  labourers which was being maintained but the question, as to whether he had  been in continuous service in all the departments he had served, was a  disputed one.  There are several establishments of the Railway  Administration.  If a workman voluntarily gives up his job in one of the  establishments and joins another, the same would not amount to his being in  continuous service.  When a casual employee is employed in different  establishments, maybe under the same employer, e.g., the Railway  Administration of India as a whole, having different administrative set up,  different requirements and different projects, the concept of continuous  service cannot be applied and it cannot be said that even in such a situation  he would be entitled to a higher status being in continuous service.  It is not  in dispute that the establishment of Appellant No. 3 herein had started a  project.  His recruitment in the said establishment would, therefore,  constitute a fresh employment.  In a case of this nature, Respondent would  not be entitled to his seniority.  If the project came to a close, the  requirements of Section 25-N of the Act were not required to be complied  with.   

        Lal Mohammad and Others v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd.  and Another [(1999) 1 SCC 596], whereupon reliance has been placed by the  High Court, cannot have any application in the instant case.  The Tribunal in  its order categorically opined that his employment was not in an ’industrial  establishment’ which would come inter alia within the purview of the  definition of a factory as contained in clause (m) of section 2 of the Factories  Act.

       Our attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court in Oswal  Agro Furane Ltd. and Another v. Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union and  Others  [(2005) 3 SCC 224].  In the said decision, this Court was concerned  with closure of an industrial establishment engaging more than 1000 people.   In the aforementioned fact situation obtaining therein, this Court held that  the consent of State Government before effecting closure of such  establishment was mandatory.

       For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the  impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly.   This appeal is allowed. No costs.