1995 JTR(SC) 862
1996 AIR(SC) 332 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 4131 ; 1996 61 DLT 201 ; 1996 88 FJR 4 ; 1975 71 FLR 822 ; 1995 6 JT 546 ; 1995 6 JT 547 ; 1996 LIC 221 ; 1996 1 LLJ 870 ; 1995 2 LLN 1129 ; 1996 1 MLJ 42 ; 1995 4 RSJ 508 ; 1995 5 Scale 198 ; 1995 5 SCC 653 ; 1995 SCC(L&S) 1279 ; 1995 Supp3 SCR 85 ; 1995 2 SLR 232 ; 1995 2 UJ 742 ; 1996 1 UPLBEC 606 ; 1995 KHC 942
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Morinda Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Ram Kishan and others etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 8058-60 of 1995 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 718-20 of 1995),
D/- 25-8-1995.
Act Referred :INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.25(h), S.25(f), S.2(o)(o)(b)(b)
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2 - Amount to retrenchment - Furnish crushing factory worked - Court have heard counsel on both sides - Labour Court and High Court in impugned judgment made in CWP concluded that since respondents had worked for more than days in year they were retrenched workmen within meaning of Section of Industrial Disputes Act - Consequently requirements of Section Act need to be satisfied but it was not done - So that retrenchment is void and consequently reinstatement of respondents was directed - This appeal by special leave – Held, Question is whether such cessation would amount to retrenchment - Since it is only seasonal work respondents cannot be to have been retrenched in view of what is stated in clause of Section of Act - Under these circumstances we are of opinion that view taken by Labor Court and High Court is illegal - Appellant is directed to maintain register for all workmen engaged during seasons enumerated hereinbefore and when new season starts appellant should make publication neigh bouring places in which respondents normally live and if they would report for duty appellant would engage them accordance with seniority and exigency of work - Appeals allowed
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2 - Amount to retrenchment - Furnish crushing factory worked - Court have heard counsel on both sides - Labour Court and High Court in impugned judgment made in CWP concluded that since respondents had worked for more than days in year they were retrenched workmen within meaning of Section of Industrial Disputes Act - Consequently requirements of Section Act need to be satisfied but it was not done - So that retrenchment is void and consequently reinstatement of respondents was directed - This appeal by special leave – Held, Question is whether such cessation would amount to retrenchment - Since it is only seasonal work respondents cannot be to have been retrenched in view of what is stated in clause of Section of Act - Under these circumstances we are of opinion that view taken by Labor Court and High Court is illegal - Appellant is directed to maintain register for all workmen engaged during seasons enumerated hereinbefore and when new season starts appellant should make publication neigh bouring places in which respondents normally live and if they would report for duty appellant would engage them accordance with seniority and exigency of work - Appeals allowed
N.D.GARG, S.K.VERMA
JUDGMENT :- Leave granted.
2. We have heard the counsel on both sides. The Labour Court and the High Court in the impugned judgment dated July 29, 1994 made in CWP Nos. 10033-35 of 1994 concluded that since the respondents had worked for more than 240 days in a year, they were retrenched workmen within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, `the Act). Consequently, requirements of Section 25-F of the Act need to be satisfied but it was not done. So, held that the retrenchment is void and consequently reinstatement of the respondents was directed. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. When we directed the appellants to furnish the crushing seasons in which the factory worked, they filed additional affidavit and for the years 1987-88 to 1993-94, crushing seasons were given as follows:-
Crushing YearCommenced onClosed on
1987-887-11-198718-4-1988
1988-8928-11-198817-4-1989
1989-9019-11-198930-4-1990
1990-9125-10-19907-3-1991
1991-9230-10-199117-4-1992
1992-9328-10-199216-10-1993
1993-942-11-199310-3-1994
4. It would thus be clear that the respondents were not working throughout the season. They worked during crushing only. The respondents were taken into work for the season and consequent to closure of the season, they ceased to work.
5. The question is whether such a cessation would amount to retrenchment. Since it is only a seasonal work, the respondents cannot be said to have been retrenched in view of what is stated in clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Labour Court and the High Court is illegal. However, the appellant is directed to maintain a register for all workmen engaged during the seasons enumerated hereinbefore and when the new season starts the appellant should make a publication in neighbouring places in which the respondents normally live and if they would report for duty, the appellant would engage them in accordance with seniority and exigency of work.
6. The appeals are accordingly allowed but, in the circumstances, without costs.
Appeals allowed.