KAPUS EKADHIKAR KARMACHARI SANGH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1272 · Decided: 11-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, S.N. PHUKAN, S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KAPUS EKADHIKAR KARMACHARI SANGH 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR 
APRIL 11, 2000 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHARAO, S.N. PHUKAN AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
c 
Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) 
Act, 1971 : Sections 2(j) and 42. 
Section 2(j)-Interpretation of-Held does not refer to the nature of 
employment-It only refers to the period of season. 
Writ filed by petitioner-Prayer for quashing the awanl passed by Indus-
trial Tribunal-Writ dismissed by High Court relying upon a Judgment of the 
Supreme Court-Appeal before Supreme Coun-Contention that judgment 
D 
relied upon by High Court was per incuriam as the definition of "cotton 
season" given in section 2(j) was not considered-Held submission made was 
not correct-There was no me1it in the contention. 
Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federa-
tion Ltd & Am: v. Employees Union & Am:, [1994) Supp 3 SCC 385, referred 
E 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 
61 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.97 of the Bombay High Court 
F 
in W.P. No. 2134 of 1988. 
H.N. Salve, Solicitor General, H.W. Dhabe, S.B. Wad, Manoj Kumar, 
A.S. Bhasme, Manish Pitale, A.K. Sanghi and S.S. Shinde for S.V. Deshpande 
for the appearing parties. 
G 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This S.L.P. has been filed against the judgment of the High Court of 
Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dated 28.7.1997 in W.P.(C) No. 2134/1998. 
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner 
H 
(Kapus Ekadhikar Karmachari Sangh), for quashing the award passed on 
1272 
1 
l
KAPUS EKADHIKAR KARMACHARI v. STATE 
1273 
27.9.1988, by the Industrial Comt in complaint No. 175 of 1987. The High 
Comt dismissed the Writ Petition mainly relying upon the Judgment, in 
Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Ltd. 
and Anr. v. Employees Union & Am; [1994] Supp 3 SCC 385. The material 
part of the order of this Court reads as follows : 
"The State Government under Section 42 of the Maharashtra 
Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing & Marketing) Act, 1971, 
appointed the Maharashtra Cooperative Marketing Federation (here-
inafter referred to as 'Marketing Federation'), a cooperative society, 
as the chief agent to implement the Cotton Monopoly Procurement 
Scheme (the 'Cotton Scheme'). The Marketing Federation was 
before that date engaged in the marketing of several commodities. 
From that date onwards till August 31, 1984, it continued to act as 
the chief agent of the State Government for procurement, processing 
and marketing of cotton as well. For this purpose it recruited and 
maintained a separate section with a separate staff. The staff 
consisted of those who were needed throughout the year and those 
who were needed only during the season. The cotton trade (which 
expression will include procurement, processing and manufacturing 
of cotton) is mostly in Vidarbha, Marathwada and Khandesh region, 
and commences roughly in the first week of November and extends 
up to April of the next year. The Cotton Scheme introduced by the 
Government has three aspects - (i) procurement (ii) processing, and 
(iii) marketing. The first two activities extend over four to six 
months in a year depending upon the extent of the availability of 
the crop, the third stage, viz., the marketing and also the function of 
maintenance of accounts are spread over throughout the year. The 
seasonal employees engaged in the said two activities consist of 
Supervisors etc. who work at the collection centres and the process-
ing centres. On an average, the seasonal employees are about twice 
the number of the perennial employees". 
At the time when the S.L.P. came up for admission, this Court passed 
an order on 19.1.98 as follows : 
"It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in 
Mahara~htra State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federa-
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
tion Ltd. & Anr. v. Employees' Union & Anr., reported in [1994] 3 
Supp. SCC 385, the definition of "Cotton Season" was contained in 
H 
1274 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing & Marketing) 
Act, 1971 was not considered and therefore the decision required 
consideration so far as the season employees are concerned. 
Issue notice". 
B 
We, therefore, heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We have con-
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
sidered his submissions in the light of the definiti

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