Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 213 (HP)

Saran Dass v. State of H. P.

2021-04-06

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2021
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The writ petitioner claims a relief that the period of his becoming incarcerated, either in police custody or in the judicial custody, ending on his acquittal, in FIR No. 207 of 2001, under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act, registered at Police Station, Chamba, be declared to be continuous service, and, he further claims that therefrom be computed the terms of his qualifying service, for the purpose of regularization. However, the afore relief, is, denied to the writ petitioner. The reasons, for declining the afore relief, is, grooved in the factum, of, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, defining, in Section 25-B thereof, the, coinage “continuous service”, the mandate whereof is extracted hereinafter: “25B-Definition of continuous service- For the purposes of this Chapter- (1) A workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work, which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman; (2) Where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer- (a) For a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) One hundred and ninety days in the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) Two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) For a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than- (i) Ninety-five days, in the case of workman employed below ground in a mine; and (ii) One hundred and twenty days, in any other case. A reading of sub-section (1) thereof, does not, contain any specific provision, for including the afore claimed writ relief(s), within the definition, of, continuous service. A reading of sub-section (1) thereof, does not, contain any specific provision, for including the afore claimed writ relief(s), within the definition, of, continuous service. Contrarily, only interruption(s) in service, rather caused on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike, which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of work, which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman, is, statutorily enumerated to be not disrupting, the, continuity in service of a workman, under his employer. Since only the afore contingencies, are, with explicity, mentioned in sub-Section (1) of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, thereupon, the afore inclusion, is, exhaustive, and, the afore writ claim, is, to be deemed to be specifically excluded. 2. Consequently, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Also, the pending application(s), if any, are disposed of. No costs.