U. P. State Coop. Land Development Bank Ltd. vs Taz Mulk Ansari

2. In view of the fact that the workmen were engaged under an agreement for a specified period, their case is covered by the proviso to clause (a) of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of this, it is unnecessary to go into the question as to whether the provisions of the Central Act or of the State Act would apply in the present case. The High Court by the impugned order has granted regularisation of the workmen on the ground that the workmen had put in more than 240 days as daily-rated employees in a year. There have since been decisions of this Court which have taken the view that mere service of 240 days in a year does not entitle a workman to regularisation of his employment.

3. It is an admitted fact that the respondent-workmen had earlier appeared before the Selection Board and had failed in the selection. Thereafter, they + Arising out of SLP (C) No. 7579 of 1993 746 approached the High Court by the present writ petition, and the High Court granted them regularisation in service on the only ground that they had put in more than 240 days of service in a year. The undisputed record shows that the respondent-workmen were every time employed at a time for only three months and their last employment was only for 17 days. Their service was to come to an end on the expiry of the said 17 days. In view of the proviso to clause (a) of Section 6-N no notice for terminating their service was necessary. The termination of their services is, therefore, valid. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the decision of the High Court is set aside. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

748