MORINDA CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD.
A
v.
RAM KISHAN AND ORS. ETC.
AUGUST 25, 1995
[K RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
B
lndztst1ial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 2(oo) and 25-F.
Retrenchment-Sugar Factory-Workmen-Working during cntshing
season only-Cessation of work consequent to closure of seaso/f-Held such C
a cessation is not retrenchment.
The respondent-workmen worked in the appellant sugar factory
during the crushing season only and consequent to closure of the season,
they ceased to work. On the question whether such a cessation would D
amount to retrenchment, the Labour Court and the High Court held that
since the respondents had worked for more than 240 days in a year, they
were retrenched workmen within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of In-
dustrial Disputes Act, 1947; the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act
having not been complied with their retrenchment was void and conse-
quently they were entitled to reinstatement.
E
Allowing the Sugar Mills's appeal, this Court
HELD: The respondents were not working throughout the season.
They worked during crushing· seaso~s only. Since it is only a seasonal
work, the rest>ondents cannot be said to have been retrenched, in view of
what is stated in clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. Under these
circumstances, the view taken by the Labour Court and the High Court is
illegal. (86-G-H)
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 8058-60 G
of 1995.
From Judgment and Order dated 29.7.94 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 10033, 10034 and 10035 of 1994.
N. D. Garg for the Appellant.
85
H
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
S.K. Verma for the Respondents.
B
c
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides: The Labour Court :>:,d the
High Court in the impugned judgment dated July 29, 1994 made in CWP
Nos. 10033-35 of 1994 concluded that since the respondents had worked
for more than 240 days in a year, they were retrenched workmen within
the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of Industries Dispute Act, 1947 (for short,
'the Act') Consequently, requirements of Section 2SF of the Act need to
be satisfied but it was not done. So, held that the retrenchment is void and
consequently reinstatement of 'the respondents was directed. Thus, this
appeal by special leave.
When we directed the appellants to furnish the crushing seasons in
D which the factory worked, they filed additional affidavit and for the years .
1987-88 to 1993-94, crushing seasons were given as follows :
Crushing Year
Commenced on
Closed on
1987-88
7.11.1987
18.4.1988
1988-89
.28.11.1988
17.4.1989
E
1989-90
19.11.1989
30.4.1990
1990-91
25.10.1990
7.3.1991
1991-92
30.10.1991
17.4.1992
1992-93
28.10.1992
16.4.1993
1993-94
2.11.1993
10.3.1994
F
It would thus be clear that the respondents were not working.
throughout the season. They worked during crushing seasons only. The
respondents were taken into work for the season and consequent to closure
of the season, they ceased to work.
The question is whether such a cessation would amount to retrench-
G ment. Since it is only a seasonal work, the respondents cannot be said to
have been retrenched in view of what is stated in clause (bb) of Section 2
(oo) of the Act. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the view taken by the labour Court and the High Court is illegal. However,
the appellant is directed to maintain a register for. all workmen engaged
H during the seasons enumerated hereinbefore and when the new season
MORINDACO-OP. v. RAM KISHAN
87
starts the appellant should make a publication in neighbouring places in A
which the respondents normally live and if they would report for duty, the
appellant would engage them in accordance with seniority and exigency of
work.
The appeals are accordingly allowed but, m the circumstances,
without. costs.
T.N.A.
Appeals allowed.
Lex