Continuous service under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act depends on 240 days in a relevant twelve-month period, not the immediately preceding year.

Section 2(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act was read as requiring actual work of not less than 240 days in a relevant twelve-month period, without adding a separate condition that those 240 days must fall in the immediately preceding year. The Court distinguished Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which expressly uses the phrase "preceding twelve calendar months," and held that the Uttar Pradesh Act's welfare protection cannot be narrowed by importing that wording. On the facts, the termination was treated as contrary to the retrenchment safeguard, while denial of back wages was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for the purpose of continuous service under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, a workman must have actually worked for 240 days in the immediately preceding 12 calendar months to attract the protection against retrenchment. (ii) Whether denial of back wages called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether, for the purpose of continuous service under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, a workman must have actually worked for 240 days in the immediately preceding 12 calendar months to attract the protection against retrenchment.

Analysis: Section 2(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act defines continuous service by reference to actual work of not less than 240 days during a period of twelve calendar months, but it does not use the word "preceding". The Court contrasted this with Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where the concept of preceding twelve calendar months was expressly introduced. Reading the welfare legislation broadly, the Court held that the statutory deeming provision under the Uttar Pradesh Act is satisfied when the workman has completed 240 days in a relevant twelve-month period and that the protection cannot be defeated merely because the workman had not worked 240 days in the year immediately preceding termination, despite having done so in earlier years. The reliance on decisions interpreting Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was held not to support the employer's narrower construction.

Conclusion: The termination was in violation of Section 6N read with Section 2(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the finding in favour of the workmen was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of back wages called for interference.

Analysis: Considering the facts and circumstances, including the financial position of the appellant and the proceedings before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, the Court found no reason to disturb the denial of back wages.

Conclusion: The denial of back wages was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the workmen were held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, but without back wages.

Ratio Decidendi: For a welfare retrenchment safeguard that defines continuous service without using the word "preceding", the relevant test is the statutory 240-day requirement within a twelve-month period and not an added condition that the workman must have worked 240 days in the year immediately preceding termination.

---