GANGA KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. versus JAIVIR SINGH

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 277 · Decided: 24-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

GANGA KISAN SAHKARI CHIN! MILLS LTD. 
A 
-)-
v. 
JAIVIR SINGH 
SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHW ARSINGHP ANTA, JJ.] 
-Y 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-U.P. Payment of Retaining c 
Allowances to Unskilled Seasonal Workmen of Sugar Factories Order, 
1972-rr. 4 and 6-Sugar factory-Workmen engaged in trial season 
of the factory-Termination from service-Claim for re-instatement 
on ground of being permanent workmen-Tenability-Held, not 
tenable-Workmen concerned did not file any appointment order D 
indicating permanent appointment-They failed to establish nature 
Ji 
of their appointment-High Court erred in holding that burden of proof 
lay on employer to establish nature of appointment-Consequently, 
orders of Labour Court andHigh Court directing re-instatement with 
back-wages and retaining allowance, set aside. 
E 
Respondents, who had been taken into work by Appellant-
sugar factory for its trial season, were subsequently terminated from 
service. They claimed re-instatement and backwages contending 
that they were permanent appointees and their termination was 
contrary to the provisions of the U.P. Standing Orders. Appellant's F 
case, however, was that Respondent-workmen were only engaged 
as casual employees on daily wage basis. Labour Court, with 
reference to the U.P. Payment of Retaining Allowances to Unskilled 
Seasonal Workmen of Sugar Factories Order, 1972 held that 
Respondents-workmen were entitled to be re-instated alongwith G 
·~ 
payment of backwages and retaining allowance. The order was 
upheld by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
277 
H 
2"78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: The workmen belonged to the seasonal category. In the 
claim petition and the pleadings it was urged that they were 
-~~ 
permanent workmen. The High Court itself noted that the 
appointment of the workmen was not permanent as the permanent 
workmen have to complete their probationary period. There was no 
B averment that the workmen had completed their probation period. 
It was further noted by the High Court that the workmen failed to 
establish the nature of their appointment. No appointment orders 
were filed. The High Court came to an abrupt conclusion that the 
burden of proof lay on the employer to establish the nature of 
'!'-
c appointment. The conclusion is clearly contrary to law. [Paras 12 and 
13) (281-G-H; 282-A] 
Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Sowaran Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 
481, relied on. 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1827 of 
2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.2003 of the High Court 
-~ 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 741 of 1992. 
E 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 1828 & 1829 of 2005. 
Ajay Kumar Misra, Raj Kishor Choudhary and Prakash Kumar 
Singh for the Appellant. 
F 
Sanjeev Malhotra for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. 1. In these appeals challenge is to the 
order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court 
G dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants. In the writ petitions, 
challenge was to the awards made by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court 
~ 
... 
(2), Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court'). By the 
impugned award, the Labour Court had directed re-instatement of the 
respondents-workmen and payment of back wages and retaining 
H allowance. The Labour Court's awards were in relation to the references 
GANGA KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. v. 
279 
JAIVIRSINGH [PASAYAT,J.] 
made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 (in short the 'Act'). A 
Reference in all.these cases related to the claim for re-instatement and 
back wages to which the concerned workmen were entitled to. The claim 
was founded on the basis that termination of services in each case was 
illegal. 
The reference reads as follows (by way of sample): 
B 
"Kya Sewayojako Dwara Apne Shramik Jai Veer Singh (Putra 
Shri Ram Lal), P.H. Recorder Ki Sewae Dinank 6.3.1985 se 
Samapt Kiya Jana Uchit Tatha/Athwa Vaidhanki Hai? Yadi 
Nahi, to Sambandhit Shramik Kya Labh/Anutosh (relief) Pane C 
Ka Adhikari Hai, Tatha Kisi Anya Vivran Sahit?" 
2. The workmen claimed that they were permanent appointees and 
the orders of termination were contrary to the provisions of the U .P. 
Standing Orders. 
D 
3. The appellants' case was that it was a seasonal factory which 
commenced its trial season only in the year 1984-85 a

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