BHOGPUR CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus HARMESH KUMAR

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 1021 · Decided: 10-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BHOGPUR CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD. 
A 
v. 
HARMESH KUMAR 
NOVEMBER l 0, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Section I 0(1 )(c)-Reference-Jurisdiction of Labour Court-Scope and 
ambit of-Held: Labour Court derives its jurisdiction from the terms of C 
reference-On facts, question referred wcs whether termination of seasonal 
worker was justified-Labour Court erred in going into question as to 
whether the employer was bound to take the services of workman in all 
subsequent seasons. 
Sections 25G, 2(oo)(bb)-Seasonal worker-Appointed on daily wage 
basis-Termination of services-Held, does not amount to retrenchment 
Sections 25G, 25H-Burden to prove continuity of service under two 
sections-Requirement of-Discussed 
Rule of 'last come first go'-Applicability of 
D 
E 
Appellant had been operating a sugar mill. It had been recruiting 
workmen in the begitJning of season and retrenching them at the end of it. 
Respondent was appointed as seasonal workman on daily wage basis. He raised 
industrial dispute pursuant whereto State referred to the Labour Court. The p 
question as to whether termination of his services was justified. Labour Court, 
opining that the workman has not been able to establish that he had worked 
for 240 days, held that the appellant having not called respondent in the 
subsequent crushing seasons and also having called his juniors, violated the 
provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent 
successfully filed Writ Petition before the High Court. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that termination of the 
respondent's services did not come within the purview of the term 
'retrenchment' as contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes 
1021 
H 
1022 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the appellant operates a seasonal 
factory and the respondent had not been in continuous service for 240 days 
B during twelve months preceding his termination. The principal question which 
was referred by the State Government was as to whether the termination of 
services of the respondent was justified. The Labour Court derived its 
jurisdiction from the terms in the reference. It ought to have exercised its 
jurisdiction within the four corners thereof. The Labour Court was, therefore, 
not required to go into the question as to whether the appellant was bound to 
C take the services of the respondent in all subsequent seasons or not. 
[1024-D-GJ 
2.1. Where Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable, 
the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of240 
days during twelve months preceding the order of termination. However, in a 
D case where he invokes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H thereof he 
may not have to establish the said fact. However, category-wise seniority is 
required to be maintained when different categories of workmen are appointed 
so as to apply the principle of 'last-come-first go'. A seniority list is al:;o 
required to be maintained so as to enable the employer to offer services to the 
retrenched employees maintaining the order of seniority. The said provisions, 
E however, would have no application in a case where Section 2(oo)(bb) of the 
Act is attracted. [1024-G, H; 1025-A-C) 
Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam & Ors., [1996) 5 SCC 419; Samishta 
Dube v. City Board, Etawah & Anr., [1999] 3 SCC 14; Regional Manager, 
SB/ v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, [2006) 1 SCC 530; Jaipur Development 
F Authority v. Ram Sahai & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 4626 of (2006) decided by 
Supreme Court on 31st October, (2006), relied on. 
2.2. Termination of services of a workman as a result of non-renewal of 
the contract of employment on its expiry or termination of such contract of 
appointment under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein would, thus, 
G not attract the definition of the term 'retrenchment'. (1025-F) 
Municipal Council, Samra/av. Sukhwinder Kaur, [2006) 6 SCC 516; 
Municipal Council, Samra/av. Raj Kumar, (2006] 3 SCC 81; Marinda Coop. 
Sugar Mills Ltd v. Ram Kishan and Ors., (1995] 5 SCC 653; Haryana State 
H Agricultural Marketing Board v. Subhash Chand and Anr., (2006] 2 SCC 794 
'-' 
.. 
BHOGPUR CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. HARMESH KUMAR [S.B. SINHA, J.) I 023 
and State of Rajasthan v. Sarjeet Singh & Anr., (2006) 10 SCALE 417, relied A 
on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIO

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