1997 JTR(SC) 829
1997 AIR(SC) 2698 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 2666 ; 1997 2 CLR 383 ; 1997 91 FJR 317 ; 1997 76 FLR 847 ; 1997 5 JT 597 ; 1998 1 LLJ 343 ; 1997 3 LLN 67 ; 1997 3 RSJ 371 ; 1997 4 Scale 338 ; 1997 10 SCC 599 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 1637 ; 1997 SCR 259 ; 1997 3 SCT 642 ; 1997 4 SLR 586 ; 1997 KHC 1691 ; 1997 5 Supreme 646
1997(5) Supreme 646
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Anil Bapurao Kanase -Appellant
versus
Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
& Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3692 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9482 of 1997)
Decided on 7-5-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Nikhil M. Sakhardande and Ms. Nandini Gore, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Person engaged in seasonal work is not entitled to retrenchment when on completion of work his services are terminated.
Act Referred :INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.2(o)(o), S.25(f)
(A) The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(o) read with Section 25-F, governs termination arising from closure or retrenchment in industrial establishments. In this proceeding, the statutory provisions were invoked to challenge termination of seasonal employment in a sugar factorys Chemistry Section after the crushing season ended, with the impugned order relying on the Acts framework to determine the applicability of retrenchment protections.
(B) The core legal principle is that seasonal workers engaged for a defined seasonal operation do not attract the retrenchment provisions under Section 25-F where the cessation of work results from the natural conclusion of the seasonal activity and not from retrenchment within the meaning of the Act; consequently, the procedural safeguards of Section 25-F have no application to such seasonal engagements.
Facts of the case:
The appellant-employee was engaged in seasonal work in the Chemistry Section of a sugar factory. Upon completion of the crushing season, the work ended and the appellants services, along with others, were terminated. The appellant contended that this termination amounted to retrenchment under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and sought a reference, a contention rejected by the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the engagement was seasonal in nature and that the termination occurred after the conclusion of the crushing season. It held that this did not constitute retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act, and therefore the provisions of Section 25-F were not attracted. The court further directed the management to maintain a register and, in subsequent seasons, engage workmen in the order of seniority until the list is exhausted before making fresh engagements.
Issues:
Whether termination of seasonal workers at the end of the crushing season constitutes retrenchment within Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether Section 25-F of the Act applies to such termination.
Ratio Decidendi:
The cessation of seasonal employment upon the natural conclusion of the seasonal operation does not fall within the definition of retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore the safeguards under Section 25-F do not apply; the nature of the engagement being seasonal places it outside the purview of the retrenchment provisions.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded.
(A) The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(o) read with Section 25-F, governs termination arising from closure or retrenchment in industrial establishments. In this proceeding, the statutory provisions were invoked to challenge termination of seasonal employment in a sugar factorys Chemistry Section after the crushing season ended, with the impugned order relying on the Acts framework to determine the applicability of retrenchment protections.
(B) The core legal principle is that seasonal workers engaged for a defined seasonal operation do not attract the retrenchment provisions under Section 25-F where the cessation of work results from the natural conclusion of the seasonal activity and not from retrenchment within the meaning of the Act; consequently, the procedural safeguards of Section 25-F have no application to such seasonal engagements.
Facts of the case:
The appellant-employee was engaged in seasonal work in the Chemistry Section of a sugar factory. Upon completion of the crushing season, the work ended and the appellants services, along with others, were terminated. The appellant contended that this termination amounted to retrenchment under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and sought a reference, a contention rejected by the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the engagement was seasonal in nature and that the termination occurred after the conclusion of the crushing season. It held that this did not constitute retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act, and therefore the provisions of Section 25-F were not attracted. The court further directed the management to maintain a register and, in subsequent seasons, engage workmen in the order of seniority until the list is exhausted before making fresh engagements.
Issues:
Whether termination of seasonal workers at the end of the crushing season constitutes retrenchment within Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and whether Section 25-F of the Act applies to such termination.
Ratio Decidendi:
The cessation of seasonal employment upon the natural conclusion of the seasonal operation does not fall within the definition of retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and therefore the safeguards under Section 25-F do not apply; the nature of the engagement being seasonal places it outside the purview of the retrenchment provisions.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. 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 retrenchment is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal and the High Court negatived the contention.
3. 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 19941, 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 Morinda Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan & Ors2, 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 was 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.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
********