AJNALA COOP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus SUKHRAJ SINGH

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 23-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

AJNALA COOP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. 
v. 
SUKHRAJ SINGH 
MAY 23, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Labour Laws : 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : 
· s. 25-F-Seasonal daily wager-Termination of Services-Held, it was 
for the workman to establish that he worked, during the relevant year, for 
more than 240 days-Since the Labour Court did not deal with the stand of 
the employer that workman had not completed 240 days as required and 
A 
B 
c 
he was 
working as a seasonal daily wager, matter remitted to it for D 
consideration afresh. 
Services of the respondent, a daily wager, were terminated. The Labour 
. Court held the termination as illegal for want of compliance of Section 25:.. 
F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and directed his reinstatement. The 
High Court dismissed the writ petition of the empoyer holding that the E 
Management was required to maintain the muster rolls and it failed to produce 
the records to support its contention that during the relevant period the 
workman, a seasonal daily wager, had not completed the requisite period of 
240 days. Aggrieved, the employer filed the instant appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD : It was for the workman to establish that he had worked for more 
t~~m 240 days. The High Court did not examine the issues in proper 
perspective as to whether the Labour Court did not specifically deal with the 
stand of the appellant that the workman had not completed more than 240 
days and he was working as a seasonal daily wager and after the season was G 
over there was no engagement. In the circumstances, the order ofthe High 
Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh 
consideration. (Paras 7 and 8) (782-A, Bl 
779 
H 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Range Forest Officer v. S. T. Hadimani, 1200213 SCC 25, Essen Deinki 
v. Rajiv Kumar, 120021 8_ SCC 400 and Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. 
Sowaran Singh, (200518 SCC 481, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2831 of 2007. 
B 
From the Final Judgment and Order ~ated 11.12.2003 of the High Court 
of Punjab & Haryana at Changigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 19172 of2003. 
M.C. Dhingra for the Appellant. 
· DirieshKumar Garg, Dr. Bheem Pratap Singh and Manoj Kumar Ahmad 
C for the Respondent. 
. 
· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted. 
D 
I. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by Division Bench of 
the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the 
appellant. In the writ petition challenge wast~ the award of the Labour Court, 
Amritsar (in short 'Labour Court')dated 27.112002, whereby alleged termination 
of services of the respondent was held to be illegal for want of compliance 
with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in 
E short the 'Aet'). The respondent was directed ~o be reinstated with continuity 
of service_ with back wages .. The appeUant's stand was that the workman had 
not completed 240 days in 12 months preceding the date of termination of the 
service and, therefore, the management was not required to comply with the 
provisions of Section 25~F of the Act. High Court noted that the workman 
F had joined the servic::e in 199 L The services were dispensed with in the year 
1993. It was noted that the management which was required to maintain the 
muster rolls failed to produce the records to support its contention that 
during this period the workman had not completed the requisite period of240 
days. Accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court was found to be 
in order and writ petition was d_ismissed. 
G 
II 
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the workman had 
not worked for more than 240 days in thepreceding 12 months. Except bare 
assertion no material . was produced. 
On the contrary the appellant has 
categorically stated that the respondent had not worked for more than. 240 
days. 
AJNALACOOP.SUGARMILLSLTD .... SUKHRAJSINGH[PASAYAT,J:) 
781 
1111111!•--
~ > 
3. In this connection reference was made to the assertion made before A 
the Labour Court that the workman was engaged on daily wager basis and 
his services were only seasonal. It was specifically asserted that after th~ 
season was over the respondent workman did not tum up and he had not 
completed 240 days of service. He was not permanent employee of the 
appellant and, therefore, reference was not maintainabl

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.