LexMAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE COTTAN GROWERS' MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. AND ANR. versus MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE COTTON GROWERS' MARKETING FEDERATION EMPLOYEES UNION AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE COTTON GROWERS' A MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. AND ANR. v. MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE COTTON GROWERS' MARKETING FEDERATION EMPLOYEES UNION AND ANR. JANUARY 24, 1994 [P.B. SAWANT AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] B Service and Labour Law: Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation-Cotton Monopoly Procurement C Scheme--Perennial and seasonal employees engaged by Federation-Dispute regarding permanency of employees-Reference to Industrial Tribunal-Award, known as Patankar Award, directing that those employees who had put in 240 days of continuous service should be treated as permanent employees-Temporary perennial employees made permanent as per D Award-Application by Union of seasonal employees after 6 years of Award, claiming permanency of seasonal employees on the basis of Patankar Award-Held, Patankar Award does not refer to seasonal employees-In- dustrial Tribunal was not called upon to adjudicate dispute with regard to permanency of seasonal employees nor the Award had directed seasonal employees to be made permanent. E Seasonal employment and seasonal employees-Difference be- tween-Explained. Model Standing Order 4-B-Held, does not apply to seasonal employees. F The Maharashtra Cooperative Marketing Federation appointed by the State Government as its chief agent to implement the Cotton. Monopoly Procurement Scheme, employee seasonal employees for procurement and processing of cotton as the activities extended over 4-6 months in a year. G For the purpose of marketing and maintenance of accounts which ac- tivities continued throughout the year the Federation engaged perennial employees. Seasonal employees ~umbered twice the number of perennial employees. In the year 1973 an industrial dispute arose between the Marketing H 289 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 1 S.C.R. A Federation and its employees. The Government, by an order dated 30th May, 1973, referred to the Industrial Tribunal the dispute which included the demand of the employees that the workmen who had put in three months aggregate service for 78 or more working days in aggregate, should be confirmed. The Tribunal by its award dated 31st August, 1984, known B as the Patankar Award, held that the employees who had put in 240 days of continuous service would be treated as permanent employees. Conse- quently, the temporary perennial employees were made permanent but the seasonal employees continued as such without demur. Later the Marketing,Federation was replaced by the Maharashtra C State Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd., appellant No. 1. The entire staff of the Marketing Federation including the seasonal staff engaged under the Cotton Scheme was taken over by the appellant-Federa- tion on the terms and conditions applicable under the previous arrange· ment. D The respondent-Union of the seasonal employees, in 1990, filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and P- Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, contending that the Patankar Award had directed the Marketing Federation to make per- manent the seasonal employees who had completed 240 days of service and E since those seasonal employees who had worked for 240 days in 1982-83 and 1983-84 cotton seasons were not made permanent there was unfair labour practice under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV to the Act. The respondent-Union claimed to quash the termination of service of the said employees at the end of the season and to make them permanent from the p date they completed 240 days of continuous service in 1983-84 cotton season. The Industrial Court allowed the claim. It directed the appellants not to terminate the services of the seasonal employees with effect from 30.4.1991), to absorb the said employees in compliance with the provisions of the Patankar Award and the Agreeml'nt dated 18.1.1984 and also by giving the benefit of the Government Letter dated 18.1.19&5. The appellant- G Federation's writ petition and Letters Patent Appeal were dismissed by the High Court. Hence the appeal by Special Leave. 1t was contended on behalf of the appellant-Federation that the assumption that the Patankar Award had directed to give permanency also H to the seasonal employees who had put in 240 days work in a year, was MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. v. EMPLOYEES UNION 291 . erroneous since the terms of reference, the statement of claim ef workmen A , --( and the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.