Holding

Permanent employees are not entitled to gratuity for years with unauthorized absence and less than 240 days, and badli employees are not entitled for the badli period; "actually employed" means "actually worked".

Summary

The Supreme Court considered claims for gratuity by 85 permanent and 25 badli employees of Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills who sought payment for every year of service irrespective of whether they had worked at least 240 days. The employer had paid gratuity only for years in which the employees were actually employed for 240 days, as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Court held that "actually employed" in Explanation I of s.2(c) means "actually worked", so permanent employees who were absent without leave and worked less than 240 days in a year are not entitled to gratuity for those years. Likewise, badli workers are not entitled to gratuity for the badli period because they do not satisfy the 240‑day requirement. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether permanent employees absent without leave and having worked less than 240 days in a year qualify for gratuity under s.4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Whether badli employees, upon becoming permanent, are entitled to gratuity for the badli period when they did not work 240 days in a year.
Interpretation of "continuous service" and the meaning of "actually employed" versus "actually worked" in Explanation I and II of s.2(c).

Legislation cited

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972s. 2(c), s. 4(1)

Subjects

Payment of Gratuity Actcontinuous servicegratuityunauthorised absencebadli workersstatutory interpretationbeneficent rule of constructionemployment lawsocial welfare legislation

Judgment

796

A LALAPPA LINGAPPA & ORS.
v.
LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS LTD., SHOLAPUR
February 11, 1981
B (A. P. SEN AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ,]

Payment of Gratuity Act 1972-Section 4(1)--Scope of-Permanent worker1
on unauthorised leave-On termination of services whether entitled to gratuity
under section 4(1)-Badli workers-If entitled to gratuity for badli period on
being made permanent.

C fVords ond phrases-"Continuous service"-"Actually e111ployed" and "actua~
ally worked" meaning of.

Interpretation of statutes-Sc cial welfare legislation-Principles of interpreta~
1

tion.

Gratuity is payable to an employee on the termination of his employment
D a·[ter he has rendered continuous service under the conditions mentioned in sec-
tion 4(1) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. The term "continuous service"
has been defined in section 2(c) to mean uninterrupted service and includes
service which is intenupted, ar11ong others, by leave or cessation of work not
due to any fault of the employ,,e concerned. Explanation I to this section pro-
vides that an en1ployee, who is not in uninterrupted service for one year, shall
be deemed to be in continuous service, if he has been actually employed by an
E employer during the twelve months immediately preceding the year for not less
than 240 days except when he is employed in a seasonal establishment. Explana-
tion II provides that an employee of a seasonal establishment shall be deemed to
be in continuous service, if he has actually worked for not less than 15% of the
number of days on which the establishment was in operation during that year.

Certain perm.anent employees of the respondent, on termination of their em-
(1 ployment, made a claim for P'<Yment of gratuity in respect of every year during
which they were in permanent employment irrespective of whether they had
actually worked for 240 days or not.

On being made permanent the badli workers claimed gratuity in respect of
the period prior to their being made permanent irrespective of whether in those
years they had been actually employed for 240 ·days or not
G
The respondent, however, paid gratuity calculating the number of years in
which they were actually employed for 240 days.

As regards the permanent employees, the Labour Coort held that they were
governed by the substantive part of the definition of continuous service in
section 2(c) npon the basis that there was no break in service; and as regards
R the badli employees, it held that they were not entitled to gratuity in respect
of the years in which they W<"e not actually employed for 240 days since they
fell within Explanation I of section 2 (c) of the Act.
L. LINGAPPA V. LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS 797

The Appellate Authority upheld the view of the Labour Court. A
On appeal, as regards the permanent employees the High Court held that
unauthorised absence from work resulted in a break of service and, therefore, the
employees were not in uninterrupted service and fell outside the substantive part
of section 2(c) but came within Explanation I. As regards badli workers it up-
held the view of the authorities.
B
In appeal it was contended that the permanent employees, even if they were
absent without leave for a number of days in a year and had actually worked for
less than 240 days due to absence without leave, were entitled to gratuity under
section 4 (I) since the jural relationship of employer and employee continued
during that period. The badli employees on being made permanent became
entitled to gratuity for the badli period because of the fact that they were re~
quired to report for work at the factory irrespective of whether they were
provided with employment or not on any day.
c
Dismissing the appeal.

HELD : I. The High Court was right in holding that the permanent employees
Were not entitled to payment of gratuity under section 4(1) for the years in
which they remained absent without leave and had actually worked for less than D
240 days in a year. [806 A]

The expression "actually employeed" used in Explanation I and "actually
worked" used in Explanation II, having regard to the context and plll'p06e with
which they were enacted, are synonymous. An employee, who is not in uninter-
rupted service for one year is deemed to be in continuous service, even though he
falls outside the substantive part of the definition in section 2 (c) provided he E
has been actually employed for 240 days in a year. In the case of seasonal
establishments, however, it is difficult to predicate the number of days on
\Vhich the establishment would be in operation in the year and an employee of
such a seasonal establishment shall be deemed to be in continuous service, if
he has actually worked for not less than 75% of the number of days on which
the establishmen~ was in operation. [802 F-H]
F
The bad/i workers do not fall within the substantive part of the definition of
"continuous service'', but are covered by Explanation I. They are, therefore, not
entitled to payment of gratuity for the badli period i.e. in respect of the years in
which no work was allotted to them due to their fallure to report to duty. Simply
because a worker is required everyday to attend the mills for ascertaining whether
work would be provided to him or not, he cannot be deemed to have rendered
servic,e and would not, on that account, be entitled to claim gratuity. Gratuity
G
is paid for services rendered. [807 C; 806 DJ

Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. lts Workmen, [1969] 2 SCR 307 at 338,
followed.

In construing a social welfare legislation, the Court should adopt a beneficient
rule of construction. If a section is capable of two constructions, that construc-
• tion should be preferred which fulfils the policy of the Act, and is more bene- H
ficial to the persons in whose interest the Act has been passed. Where the
language is plain and unambiguous the Court must give effect to it whatever may
A
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1981] 2 S.C.R.

be the consequences. In that caso the words Of the statute speak the intention
Of the legislature. The. argument Of inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous
-
one and is only admissible in co:11Struction where the meaning of the statute is
obscure and there are two meth<>is of construction. Jn their anxiety to advance
b~neficient purpose of legislation,. the Courts must not yield to the temptation
of seeking ambiguity when there; is none. [804 G-H)

B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 436 of 1980.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
1-9-1978 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
200/78.

c AND
Civil Appeal No. 930 of 1980.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order of the
President, Industrial-Court, Bombay (Appellate Authority appointed
under Payment of Gratnity Act, 1972), in Appeal PGA Nos. 34/78
D and 36 to 119/79.
R. S. Kulkarni, Mrs. V.?ena Devi Khanna and V. N. Ganpule for
the Appellants and intervener.
F. S. Nariman, B. N. Srikrishna, R. P. Kapur, H. S. Parihar and
Shardul S. Shroff for the Respondents ..
E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN, J.-The controve:rsy in these two appeals by special leave
against a judgment of the Bombay High Court and an order of the
President, Industrial Court, Bombay, turns on the construction of the
expression 'continuous service' as defined in s.2 ( c) of the Payment
F of Gratuity Act, 1972.
The facts giving rise to these appeals are these : Eighty-five per-
manent employees of the respondent who were on the regular muster
roll, on termination of their employment, made a claim for payment
of gratuity for the entire period of their service, i.e., in respect of
G every year during ·which they were in permanent employment, irres-
pective of !he fact whether they had actnally worked for 240 days in
a year or not. Twenty-five badli employees of the respondent, who
were on the badli register, upon being made permanent, made a •,
similar claim for payment: of gratnity for the badli period, i.e. in respect
of the period prior to their being made permanent, irrespective of
H the fact whether in those years they had been actnally employed for '
240 days or not. The r<espondent, however, calculated the number of
years in which these employees were actnally employed for at least
L. LINGAPPA V, LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS (Sen, !.) 799

240 days in a year and paid gratuity accordingly. The Labour Court, A
which is the Controlling Authority, held in relation to the permanent
employees that they were governed by the substantive part of the
definition of 'continuous service' in s. 2(c) of the Act, upon the basis
that there was no break in service, i.e., there was no question
of their actual employment or actual working for 240 days or
• more, but as regards the badli employees, it held that they were not B
' entitled to gratuity in respect of those years in which they were 11ot
actually employed for 240 days since they fell within Explanation I
to s. 2(c) of the Act. That view of the Controlling Authority was
affirmed in appeal by the President of the Industrial Court. who is
the Appellate Authority. The High Court while upholding the view
of these authorities in respect of the bad/is, has, however, reversed
c
their decision with regard to the permanent employees on the ground
that unauthorised absence from work result.s in a break of service
and, therefore, they were not in uninterrupted service and fell outside
the substantive part of s. 2 (c) but came within Explanation I.
In support of these appeals, it was urged that the High Court was D
in error in equating the phrase 'actually employed' with 'actually
worked'. It was submitted that though the word 'service' has not been
defined in the A_ct, the emphasis is on the subsistence of the contract
of employment. It is urged that the word 'employed' connotes
a c0ntract of employment and both the permanent employees
E
and badli employees, therefore, fall within the substantive
part of the definition of 'continuous service' in s. 2(c).
In substance, the contention is that Explanation I to s. 2(c)
covered only those cases where there was a break in continuity
of service, by reason of discharge from service and re-employment.
In regard to the permanent employees, it is urged that they would F
be deemed to be in continuous service for purposes of sub-s. ( 1) of
s. 4 of the Act so long as their names are borne on the permanent
muster roll. In other words, the submission was that the jural
relationship of employer and employee continues irrespective of
whether they had actually worked for 240 days or not. With regard
to the badli employees, it is urged that once a person is given a badli G
card it matters little whether he actually works for 240 days 1>r not,
since he had to report for work and his employment is at the volition
of the employer. Thus, the absence of the badli employees on the
days on which they were not provided with work, although they re-
ported for duty and there was an endorsement made to that effect
• in the badli card, could not be treated as interruption of service. It H
was pointed out that the badli employees had been put at par with the
permanent employees and enjoyed all such benefits such as bonus,
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R l
retrenchment compensation, lay-off compensation, provident fund
benefits, benefits under the Employees' State Insurance Act ~nd the
Workmen's Compensation Act, leave under the Factories Act, etc.,
and there was no reason why they should be deprived of the benefit
of gratuity for those years in which they had worked for less than
'
240 days because of their absence without leave. We are afraid, this
B line of reasoning cannot be accepted being against the scheme of the
Act.
Two questions arise in these appeals. The first is as to whether
permanent employees are i:ntitled to payment of gratuity under sub-
s. ( 1) of s. 4 of the Act for the years in which they remained absent
without leave for a number of days in a year and had actually
c worked for less than 240 dayi;, due to absence withont leave. The
second is as to whether the badli employees are entitled to such
gratuity on beco1ning permanent employees, for the badli period in
respect of the years in which there was no work allotted to them due
to their failure to report to duty. These questions relate to the years
0 in which these employees were not actually employed for 240 days
in a year, due to their absence without leave.
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act'), is enacted to introduce a scheme for payment of gratuity
for certain industrial and commercial establishments, as a measure
of social security. It has now bee:n universally recognised that all
E persons in society need protection against loss of income due to un·
employment arising out of incapacity to work due to invalidity, old
age etc. For the wage earning papulation, security of income, when
the worker becomes old or infirm, is of consequential importance.
The provisions of social security measures retiral benefits like gratuity,
provident fund and pemion (known as the triple benefits) are of
F special importance. In bringing the Act on the statute book the inten-
tion of the legislature wa1s not only to achieve uniformity and reason-
able degree of certainty, bnt also to create and bring into force
a self-contained, all-embracing, complete and comprehensive code
relating to gratuity. 11Je significance of this legislation lies in the
acceptance of the principle of gratuity as a compulsory, statutory
G retiral benefit.
For a proper appreciation of the question involved, it is necessary
to set out the relevant provisions of the Act. Sub-section ( l) of s. 4
reads as follows :
4. (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the
H termination of his employment after he has rendered con- •
tinuous service for not less than five years,- •
(a) on his superannuation, or
'"' LINGAPPA v. LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS (Sen,].) 80 l

(b) on his retirement or resignation, or A
( c) on his death or disablement due to accident or
disease;
Provided that the completion of continuous service of
five years shall not be necessary where the termination of
B
• the employment of any employee is due to death or disable-
• ment;

Provided further that in the case of death of the em-
ployee, gratuity, payable to him shall be paid to his nominee
or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs.
c
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, disable-
ment means such disablement as incapacitates an employee
for the work which he was capable of performing before the
accident or disease resulting in such disablement.

The expression 'continuous service' has been defined in s. 2 (c) of D
the Act in these terms :
2. ( c) "continuous service" means uninterrupted service
and includes service which is interrupted by sickness,
accident, leave, lay-off, strike or a lock-out or cessation of
work not due to any fault of the employee concerned,
whether such uninterrupted or interrupted service was ren- E
dered before or after the commencement of this Act.
Explanation 1.-In the case of an employee who is not in
uninterrupted service for one year, he shall be deemed to be
in continuous service if he has been actually employed by an
employer during the twelve months immediately preceding F
the year for not less than-
(i) 190 days, if employed below the ground in a mine,
or
(ii) 240 days, in any other case, except when he is em-
ployed in a seasonal establishment. G
Explanation 11.-An employee of a seasonal establish-
ment shall be deemed to be in continuous service if he bas
• actually worked for not less than seventy-five per cent of the
' number of days on which the establishment was in operation
during the year.
• H
The Act is a piece of social we 1fare legislation and deals with
matters relating to payment of gratuity which, like pension, provident
4-214 SCJ/81
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] l S.C.R.

A fund etc., is a retiral benefit. Interrupted service by reason of sickness,
leave, lay-off, strike, lock-ont. or cessation of work not due to any
fault of the employee concerned should not be regarded as a break
in continuity of his service. The inclusive part of the definition ot
'continuous service' in s. 2(c) is to amplify the meaning of the expres-
sion by including interrupted service under certain contingencies
B
which, but for such inclusion, would not fall within the ambit •
of the expression 'continuous service'. There were compelling reasons •
why the legislature gave an enlarged meaning to the expression 'con-
tinuous service' in s. 2(c) of the Act, so that the workers who have I
rendered long and meritorious service are not deprived of their right
to gratuity by reason of absence from duty due to circumstances be-
c yond their control
The two Explanations have been inserted by the legislature to
define the words 'one completed year of service' to benefit a class of
employees who are not in uninterrupted service for one year. These
Explanations employ a fiction which converts service of (a) 190
D
days, if employed below the ground in a mine, (b) 240 days,
in any other case except when employed in a seasonal establishment,
in a period of 12 calendar months, or (c) 75 per cent of the number
of days which the seasonal establishment was in operation, to be one
complete year.
E The main point in controversy in these appeals is as to whether
the expression 'actually employed' in Explanation I to s. 2(c) must,
in the context in which it appears, mean 'actually worked'. The iegis-
Jature has, no doubt, used two different expressions, namely, 'actually
employed', in Explanation I and 'actually worked' in Explanation II.
F But, they are, in our view,, having regard to the context and purpose
with which they have been enacted, synonymous. Explanation I deals
with the case of an .employee who is not in uninterrupted ser-
vice for one year. Such an employee shall be deemed to be in
continuous service even though he falls outside the substantive part
of the definition in s. 2(c) provided he has been actually employed
G for 240 days in a year. The expression 'actually employed' in Expla-
nation I must, therefore, mean 'actually worked'. There is a reason
why a different expression is used in Explanation II. In the case or
a seasonal establishment it is difficult to predicate the number of days • I.
on which the establishment would be in operation in the year and an
employee of such a seasonal establishment shall, therefore, be deemed
H to be in continuous service if he has actually worked for not less than •
75% of the number of days on which the establishment was in
operation.
L. LINGAPPA v. LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS (Sen, J.) 803

The history of the legislation is set out in the Statement of Objects A
and Reasons accompanying the Bill.(') The Bill adopted bys. 2(c)
the definition of the expression 'continuos service' as defined in s. 2 (b)
of the Kerala Industrial Employees' Payment of Gratuity Act, 1970
and s. 2(c) of the West Bengal Employees' Payment of Compulsory
Gratuity Act, 1971, which reads :
B
2. In this Act unless the context otherwise requires,-
( c) "continuous service" means uninterrupted service and
includes service which is interrupted by sickness, accident,
leave, strike which is not illegal or a lock-out or cessation of
work not due to any default of the employee concerned.
c
The Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and the Select Committee
by its Report presented to the Lok Sabha on May 2, 1972 proposed
three vital changes in the definition of the expression 'continuous
service' in c. 2 ( c) , namely, ( 1) for the purpose of computation of
the period of continuous service, the entire period whether interrupted
or uninterrupted, before or after the commencement of the Act, had D
to be taken into account, (2) the period of strikes or lay-offs were
to be considered as part of 'continuous service', and (3) the benefit
of sub-s. ( 1) of s. 4 was to be extended by alegal fiction in the care
of an employee who was not in uninterrupted service for one year.
subject to the fulfilment of the conditions laid down in Explanations
I and IT. E

The legislative intent is brought out in the Report of the Select
Committee. The Note of the Committee with regard to the two Ex-
planations bears out that the expression 'actually employed' in Ex-
planation I and the eXIPression "actually worked' in Explanation II
were used in the same sense. The Note reads : (') F
.-. The Committee also feel that an Explanation may be
added to the definition of 'continuous service' to the effect
that an employee who works-
(a) in a mine below the ground for 190 days, or
G
(b) in any other case, for 240 days.
in a year, should be deemed to be in continuous service.
l• The Committee also feel that in the case of persons
employed in seasonal establishments, such persons, would
--- (1) Bill No. 154 of 1971 published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary
• Part II, Section 2 dated December 10, 1971 at P. 1027 (p. 1034). H
' (2) Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II-Section 2 dated May 2, 1972
p. 324
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 s.c.R.

A be deemed to be in continuous service if they had been em-
ployed for 75 per cent of the days during which the estab-
lishment had been in operation during the season.
that wos the intention with which the two Explanations were added
to the definition of 'continuous service' ins. 2(c) of the Act.
B The expression 'continuous service' in the context of a gratuity
scheme was interpreted by this Court in M/s Jeewanlal (1929) Lld.,
Calcutta v. Its W0tkme11( ') as follows ;
"Continuous service" in the context of the scheme of
gratuity framed by the tribunal in the earlier reference
c postulates the continuance of the relationship of master and
servant between the employer and his employees. If the
servant resigns his t~mployment service automatically comes
to an end. If the employer terminates the service of his
employee that again brings the continuity of service to an
end. If the service of an employee is brought to an end
D by the operation of any law that again is another instance
where the continuance is disrupted; but it is difficult to hold
that merely because an employee is absent without obtain-
ing leave that itself would bring to an end the continuity of
his service. Similarly, participation in an illegal strike
..
which may incur the punishment of dismissal may not by
E itself bring to an end the relationship of master and servant
It may be a good cause for the termination of service pro-
vided of course the relevant provisions in the standing
orders in that behalf are complied with; but mere participa-
tion in an illegal f:tnlce cannot be said to cause breach in
continuity for the purposes of gratuity.
F
(emphasis added)
The legislature has departed from the meaning given by this Court ...-_
in the above case to the expression 'continuous service' bv incorpo-
rating the words 'not due to any fault on the part of the employee con-
cerned', to give to that expression a restricted legal connotation.
G
In construing a social welfare legislation, the court should adopt
a beneficient rule of construction; if a Section is capable of two con-
structions, that construction should be preferred which fulfils the •I
policy of the Act, and is more beneficial to the persons in whose
interest the Act has been passed. When, however, the lan!!Ua~e is
H plain and unambiguous, as here, we must give effect to it whatever
may be the consequences, for, in that case, the words of the statute
•
(1) [19621-1 S.C.R. 717 at 722-723.
L. LIN GAPPA v. LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS (Sen, J.) 805

speak the intention of the legislature. When the language is explicit, A
its consequences are for the legislature and not for the courts to con-
sider. The argument of inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous
one and is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the
statute is obscur" and there are two methods of construction. In
their anxiety to advance beneficient purpose of legislation, the courts
must not yield to the temptation of se_eking ambignity when there is B
• none.(')
'
In dealing with interpretation of sub-s. ( 1) of s.4, we must keep
in view the scheme of the Act. Sub-s. ( 1) of s.4 of the Act incorpo-
rates the concept of gratuity being a reward for long, continuous and
meritorious service. The emphasis therein is not on 'continuity of c
employment', but on rendering of 'continuous service'. The legisla-
ture inserted the two Explanations in the definition to extend the
benefit to em,ployees who are not in uninterrupted service for one year
subject to the fulfilment of the conditions laid down therein. By
the use of a legal fiction in these Explanations, an employee is deemed
to be in 'continuous service' for purposes of sub-sec. (1) of s.4 of D
the Act. The legislature never intended that the expression 'actually
employed' in Explanation I and the expression 'actually worked' in
Explanation II should have two different me,anings because it wanted
to extend the benefit to an employee who 'works' for a particular num-
ber of days in a year in either case. In a case falling under Explana-
tion I, an ellliPloyee is deemed to be in continuous service if he has E
been actually employed for not less than 190 days if employed below
the ground in a mine, or 240 days in any other case, except when he
is employed in a seasonal establishment. In a case falling under
Explanation II, an employee of a seasonal establishment, is deemed
to be in continuous service if he has actually worked for not less than
F
75 per cent of the number of days on which the establishment was in
operation during the year.

In our judgment, the High Court rightly observed : "It is impor-
tant to bear in mind that in Explanation I the legislature has used the
words 'actually employed'. If it was contemplated by Explanation I
that it was sufficient that there should be a subsisting contract of G
employment, then it was not necessary for the legislature to use the
words 'actually employed'." It is not permissible to attribute redun-
•• dancy to the legislature to defeat the purpose of enacting the Expla-
nation. The expression 'actually employed' in Explanation I to s.2
( c) of the Act must, in the context in which it appears, mean 'actually H
• worked'. It must accordingly be held that the High Court was right
'
(1) Craies on Statutes, 6th Edn. pµ. 84--91.
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 2 S.C.R.

A in holding that the permanent employees were not entitled to pay-
ment of grntuity .under sub-s. ( 1) of s.4 of the Act for the years in
which they remained absent without leave and had actually worked
for less than 240 days in a year.
As regards badli employees, there can be no doubt that they are
not in uninterrupted service and, therefore, they do not fall within the
substantive part of the definition 'continuous service' i11 s.2(c), but
are covered by Explanation I. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.
v. Its Workmen(') the Court, while dealing with a gratuity scheme,
repelled the contention urged on behalf of the badli employees that
since they had to register themselves with the managemnt of the tex-
c tile mills and were requtred every day to attend the mills for ascer-
taining whether work would be provided to them or not, the condi-
tion requiring that they should have worked for not less than 240
days in a year to qualify for gratuity was unjust and observed:
If gratuity is to be paid for service rendered, it is diffi-
D out to appreciate the grounds on which it can be said that ·
because for maintaining his name on the record of the badli
workmen, a workman is required to attend the mills he may
be deemed to have rendered service and would on that ac-
count be entitled afao to claim gratuity.

Standing Order No. 3 as settled by the Industrial Court uuder
E
s.36(3) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 for Opera-
tives in Cotton Textile Mills, in so far as material, provides '
(3) Operatives shall be classed as (1) Permanent; (2)
Probationer; (3) Hadlis; (4) Temporary Operatives; and
(5)Apprentices.
F
xx xx
A "badli" is one who is employed on the post of a
permanent operative or probationer who is temtPorarily ab-
sent.
G xx xx
It is not denied that the Management has got "' separate register for
the badli employees and that those who need work and when !hey call
•
at the gate of the mills for work, such number of them are employed •
by the mills to fill up the vacancies of permanent operatives or pro-
H bationers who are abs(,nt on a particular day either on account of
illness or for any other cause.
(I) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 30'7 at 338.
L. L!NGAPPA v. LAXMI VISHNU TEXTILE MILLS (Sen, J.) 807

The Report of the Badli Labour Enquiry Committee, Cotton Tex- A
:tile Industry, 1967, no doubt shows that the badli employees are an
integral part of the textile inc!::.stry and that they enjoy most of the
benefits of the permanent employees; but there may not be .any con-
tinuity of service as observed by this Court in the Delhi Cloth Mills'
case (supra). The badli employees are nothing but substitutes. They
are like 'spare ll)en' who are not 'employed' while waiting for a job : B
Conlon v. Glasgow('). Val/abhdas Kanji (P) Ltd. v. Esmail Kaya
.& Ors.(') taking the view to the contrary, does not appear to lay
down a good law. Accordingly, we uphold the view that the badli
employees are not covered by the substantive part of the definition
of 'continuous service' in s.2(c), but came within Explanation I and,
therefore, are not entitled to payment of gratuity for the badli period, c
i.e. in respect of the years in which there was no work allotted to lhem
.due to their failure to report to duty.
The result, therefore, is that the appeals must fail and are accord-
ingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
D

P.B.R. Appeals dismissed.

(

(1) 36 Scottish Law Reporter 652.
(2) [1978] Lab. I.C. 809.