http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7229 of 2002

PETITIONER: D.G.M.,Oil & Natural Gas Corpn. Ltd. & Anr.

RESPONDENT: Ilias Abdulrehman

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/12/2004

BENCH: N. Santosh Hegde & S.B. Sinha  

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

SANTOSH HEGDE, J.

The reference under Section 10 (1) (c)  of the Industrial Disputes  Act in regard to two employees,  was referred to the Industrial Judge  (Centre) Ahmedabad in Reference (ITC) No. 23 of 1987. The issue  referred was whether the Management was justified in terminating the  services of the workmen without  complying with the provisions of  Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If not, what relief are  they entitled to?  Since in this appeal we are concerned with  workman Ilias Abdul  Rehman only, we will confine ourselves to that part of the Reference  only.  Before the Industrial Court, the respondent-workman pleaded that  between the period 1-3-1982 and 30-7-1984 he had worked in the  Department of geophysical party at Baroda  and Mehsana, and also in  the Chemistry Department as a daily wager. According to the workman  these appointments were intermittent in nature but he had worked  continuously for more than 240 days in a given year, hence his non- employment from 30.7.1984 is contrary to section 25F of the Act.   

The appellant-corporation, however, pleaded that this respondent  was never appointed in the service of the appellant but was working as  a water supplier contractor on a payment of Rs. 250/- per month and it  produced exhibit No. 21 and other records  of Rig No. 28  at sl. No. 2  to 9  which contained his signature to show that he was  contracted to  supply water at Rs. 250/- per month. The Industrial Court on  consideration of the material on record came to the conclusion that  according to the respondent-workman  himself, he worked in different   units under different administrations of the appellant-Corporation  at  Baroda and Mehsana projects.   These units, however, cannot be  considered as a single unit or department under the appellant- corporation.  Hence, the days put in by the respondent-workman  in  different units cannot be counted for the purpose of determining  whether the workman worked  for 240 days continuously  for the  purpose of Section 25 F of the Act.  While arriving at this conclusion,  the Industrial Court relied on a judgement of this Court in the case of  Indian Cable Co. Ltd. vs. Its Workmen  (1962 1 LLJ 409). On facts  also it came to the conclusion that the respondent was considered  for  regular appointment and found not qualified since he had not passed 7th  Class  which was a requisite qualification. Hence, despite considering  his case the Corporation was unable to provide regular appointment to  the respondent-workman. Therefore, not providing  a continuous job to  the respondent-workman by the appellant did not offend  Article 25 F  of the Act and did not really amount to an unfair labour practice. It also  gave  a finding that his last appointment was as a water supply  contractor  which is evidenced  by Exhibit  21 and from the vouchers   of Rig No. 28 at Sl. Nos. 2 to 9 of the records, the contents of which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

were admitted by the workman. On the above basis the claim of the  respondent workman  came to be rejected.  

The aggrieved workman filed a writ petition before the Single  Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad who took a contrary  view on facts of the case by holding  that the services of the petitioner  under the several sections or  departments in the same industry  have to  be counted as under the same employer, and consequently, the   termination of such service has to be held  illegal in view of the non  compliance  of the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act. Hence, it  ordered his reinstatement with 50 % back wages from the date of  Reference.  

The appeal filed against the said order of the learned Single  Judge by the appellant herein before the Appellate Bench of the said  High Court  also came to be dismissed accepting the finding of the  learned Single Judge  that the termination of the workman was contrary  to Section 25 F of the Act. While doing so the Appellate Bench made  two factual errors. In the impugned judgment it noticed that the  Industrial Tribunal  on appreciation  of evidence had held that  the case  of the appellant that the workman was last employed as a contractor   for supply of water to the employees of the appellant has not been  proved. A perusal of the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal shows  otherwise. The Appellate Bench made a second factual error in noting  that the Industrial Tribunal had given a finding that the respondent- workman had been employed by the appellant-Corporation which again  is contrary to the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. A perusal  of the order of the Industrial Tribunal shows it to be so, therefore the  judgment of the Appellate Bench is based on factual inaccuracies.  

However the learned Single Judge considered the question of the  nature of work done by the respondent-workman in the appellant  organisation and came to the conclusion that even though the  respondent-workman worked in different independent Departments of  the appellant-Corporation like Geophysical party No.18 and  Department of Chemistry at different periods and at different places  like Baroda and Mehsana, still for the purpose of computing 240 days  of continuous work for the purpose of section 25F of the Act, the said  employment should be construed as an  employment under the  appellant-Corporation. This finding of the learned Single Judge was by  overruling the finding given by the Industrial Tribunal which followed  a judgment of this Court in the case of Indian Cable Co. Ltd. (supra).  

A perusal of the evidence adduced by the workman himself  shows that he went in search of employment to different places and  whenever there was a temporary employment available in different  Departments of the appellant-Corporation; be it the field work or the  work in the Chemistry Department, he accepted  the employment and  worked in these Departments not in one place alone but at different  places like Baroda and Mehsana. It has come on record that the  Management did try to accommodate the appellant in a permanent job  but could not do so because of lack of qualification. In such  circumstances we think the Industrial Tribunal was justified in coming  to the conclusion that the number of days of work put in by the  respondent in broken periods, cannot be taken as a continuous  employment for the purpose of section 25F of the Act, as has been held  by this Court in the case of Indian Cable Co. Ltd. (supra). We are aware  that the judgment of this Court in Indian Cable Co. Ltd. (supra) was  rendered in the context of section 25G of the Act, still we are of the  opinion that the law for the purpose of counting the days of work in  different Departments controlled by an apex Corporation will be  governed by the principles laid down in the judgment of Indian Cable  Co. Ltd. (supra), and the Industrial Tribunal was justified in dismissing  the Reference.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

For the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal, set aside the  orders of the High Court and restore the order of the Industrial  Tribunal.