BATALA COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus SOWARAN SINGH

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 304 · Decided: 07-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BATALA COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. 
V. 
SOWARAN SINGH 
OCTOBER 7, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 2(oo)(bb) and 25F-Workman 
engaged on casual basis for specific period and for specific purpose-
C Termination of-Held, did not amount to retrenchment within meaning of 
S.2(oo), in view of c/ause(bb) thereof-Relief of re-instatement granted by 
Courts below on ground of non-compliance with S.25F cannot be maintained-
Onus was wrongly placed on the employer to prove that the workman had not 
worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination. 
D 
Respondent-workman raised industrial dispute alleging that he was 
appointed w.e.f. lst April, 1986 on regular basis against a regular post 
and that his services were illegally terminated on 12th February, 1994 
without any notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation. 
The Labour Court observed that though the appellant-employer took 
E the stand that the respondent was only employed on casual basis on daily 
wages for specific period and. for specific purpose, yet i.t gave an evasive 
reply in respect of the respondent's stand that he was appointed in April, 
1986; that no attendance record was produced; that there was no material 
to show that.the respondent had left the job on his own accord and that 
F 
G 
H 
in any event the appellant had not proved that the respondent had worked 
for less than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of 
termination. Accordingly, the Labour Court held that there was violation 
of Section 25F of the Act and directed re-instatement of the respondent 
with 50% back wages. High Court declined to interfere with the award 
passed by Labour Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court's judgment is unsustainable on more than 
one count. (307-F) 
304 
BATALA COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. SOW ARAN SINGH[PASAYAT, J.] 305 
2.1. The materials on record clearly establish that the engagement A 
of the VI orkman was for specific period and specific work. In view of the 
position as highlighted in Marinda Sugar Mills and Anil Bapurao 's cases, 
the relief granted to the workman by the Labour Court and the High 
Court cannot be maintained. (309-CI 
2.2. So far as the question of onus regarding working for more than B 
240 days is concerned, the onus is on the workman. But at the same time 
as observed in Marinda Sugar Mills case, the modalities indicated shall be 
followed by the appellant-employer. In fact before the Labour Court, it 
was clearly stated that the employer was willing to offer engagement to 
the workman as and when necessity arises. If there is any requirement C 
for engagement the case of respondent-workman shall be considered in 
its proper perspective and necessary orders shall be passed. 
(309-D; 310-D-E) 
Marinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan and Ors., (1995) 
5·SCC 653; Anil Bapuraa Kanase v. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. D 
and Anr., (1997) 10 SCC 590 and Range Forest Officer v. S. T. Hadimani, 
12002 J 3 sec 25, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7981 of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2003 of the Punjab and E 
Haryana High Court in C. W.P. No. 19304 of 2003. 
M.C. Dhingra for the Appellant. 
Sanjay Sarin, Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, N.P. Midha and Ashok Mathur 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Appellant calls in question legality of the 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High 
Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and upholding the 
award made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur. 
G 
Factual background in a nutshell is as follows: 
The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') made a 
grievance before the State Government that his services were illegally 
terminated by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'employer'). H 
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Reference was made by the State Government under Section IO( I) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the' Act') for adjudication the following 
question: 
"Whether termination of services of sh. Sowaran singh workman is 
justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of 
B 
compensation is he entitled? 
The case of the workman as pleaded in the demand notice was that he 
was appointed by the employ

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