DIRECTOR, FISHERIES TERMINAL DIVISION versus BHIKUBHAI MEGHAJIBHAI CHAVDA

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 761 · Decided: 09-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 761 
DIRECTOR, FISHERIES TERMINAL DIVISION 
A 
..._ 
J 
v. 
BHIKUBHAI MEGHAJIBHAI CHAVDA 
(Civil Appeal No. 7463 of 2009) 
j' 
NOVEMBER 9, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
ss. 2(oo)(bb), 25A and 25F - Seasonal industry- Daily 
wager- Termination of- Held: Since respondent-workman was c 
&mp/oyed for seasonal work /temporary period, he cannot be 
said to have been retrenched in view of s.2(oo)(bb). 
ss. 258, 25F and 25G - Daily wager - Ter[77ination of -
Workman filed claim - Plea of employer that workman did not 
work for 240 days during preceding year to constitute 
continuous service, and therefore, not entitled to protection 
D 
under the Act - On facts. held: Not tenable - Being a daily 
,, 
wager, the workman had difficulty in having access to all official 
documents, muster rolls etc. in connection with his service, yet 
he came forward and deposed in Court, so burden of proof 
shifted to the employer - Employer did not produce complete 
E 
records and muster rolls inspite of direction issued by labour 
court and practically did not challenge the deposition of 
workman during cross-examination -
Retrenchment 
procedure laid down in s.25G was also not followed. 
Termination - Challenge by workman - Contested by 
F 
· employer as being time-barred - Held: There was no 
unexplained delay on part of workman in approaching the 
labour court as alleged by the employer -- Workman had first 
approached the Conciliation Officer- Only when conciliation 
proceedings failed that the matter was referred to labour court 
for final adjudication. 
G 
J! 
Respondent, working as watchman on daily wage 
basis, was terminated from service. He filed claim before 
the Labour Court stating that he was terminated without 
notice and without compliance with the provisions of 
761 
H 
762 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court directed 
the appellant-employer to reinstate respondent with 20% 
( 
back wages. The order of the Labour Court was affirmed 
by the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that 
B being a fisheries department, it was only a seasonal 
industry and therefore Section 25F of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947 was not attracted and the lower courts 
erred in directing the re-instatement of respondent. The 
other contentipn raised by the appellant was that 
... 
c respondent was employed on purely temporary bas.is, and 
as he did not work for 240 days during the preceding year · 
to constitute.c.ontinuous service, he could not claim any 
protection under tfre" lndusttfaLOisputes Act, 1947. It was 
also contended by the appellant that the claim of the 
respondent was time-barred, since he approached the 
D labour court about eight years from ·the date of termination 
and therefore, the labour court ought not to have 
entertained the said claim. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD:1.1. Where a workman is employed for a 
seasonal work or temporary period, the workman cannot 
be said to be retrenched in view of Section 2(oo) (bb) of 
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. [Para 11) [767-F-G] 
1.2. In the normal course, it is the decision of the 
appropriate Government which is final in determination 
·~ 
F whether the said industry is seasonal in nature. However 
in the present case, as observed by the labour court and 
the High Court, nothing was brought on record by the 
appellant to suppo ·t their contention that fisheries is a 
seasonal industry. No order from the Government was 
G produced by the appellant to state that the fisheries 
industry is seasonal. There was no mention of any 
decision on part of the appropriate Government with 
'It 
regard to declaring fisheries as a seasonal industry. 
Therefore, the appellant cannot be classified as a seasonal 
H 
industry. [Para 12] (768-A-C] 
DIRECTOR, FISHERIES TERMINAL DIVISION v. 
763 
BHIKUBHAI MEGHAJIBHAI CHAVDA 
Marinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Ram Kishan 
A 
> (1995) 5 sec 653, relied on. 
2.1. In the present case, the evidence produced by the 
appellant was not consistent. Being a workman on daily 
wage basis, it is obvious that he would have difficulty in 
having access to all the official documents, muster rolls 
B 
etc. in connection with his service. However he has come 
forward and deposed, so the burden of proof shifted to the 
employer/appellant to prove that he did not complete 240 
~ days

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