https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305324 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. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Nov 2022 14:57:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305324 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305324