- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 7 May 1997
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad, G. B. Pattanaik
- Result
- Appeal dismissed.
Headnote
Labour Law Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
Ss.25-F and 2(oo)(bb)-Sugar factory-Seasoiial worker--Disengage-ment after the season is over-Held, is not retrenchment-However, Manage-ment should maintain a register of such employee~When the season starts in the succeeding year, the workmen should be engaged according to the seni01ity and, until all such workmen are engaged, Management should not recruit new workmen.
Marinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan & Ors., [1995] 5 SCC 653, relied on.
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
Leave granted.
The appellant -employee was engaged in the seasonal work in the Chemistry Section of the sugar factory by the respondent No. 1. Since the work was over, the services of the appellant and others were terminated. He sought a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') contending that the termination being in the nature of retrench-ment is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal and the High Court negatived the contention.
0 - Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment of the High Court of Bombay relied on in the impugned order dated March 28, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 488 of 1994 is perhaps not applicable. Since the appellant has worked for more than 180 days, he is to be treated as retrenched employee and if the procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applied to, his retrenchment is illegal. We find no force in this contention. In Marinda Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan & Ors., (1995] 5 SCC 653 in paragraph-3, this Court has dealt with engagement of the seasonal workman in sugarcane crushing; in paragraph 4, it is stated that it was not a case of retrenchment of the workman, but of closure of the factory after crushing season W.s over. _ Accordingly, in paragraph 5, it was held that it is not 'retrenchment' within the meaning of Section 2( oo) of the Act. As a consequence the appellant is not entitled to retrenchment as per clause (bb) of Section 2( oo) of the Act. Since the present work is seasonal business, the principles of the Act have no application. However, this Court has directed that the respondent-management should maintain a register and engage the workmen when the season starts in the succeeding years in the order of seniority. Until all the employees whose names appear in the list are engaged in addition to the employees who are already working, the management should not go in for fresh engagement of new workmen. It would be encumbent upon the respondent management to adopt such procedure as is enumerated above.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3692 of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.95 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 488 of 1994.
Appearances
Nikhil M. Sakhardande and Nandini Gore for the appellant.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.