STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. versus SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH, SANGLI AND ORS.

Citation: [2013] 17 S.C.R. 992 · Decided: 21-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. GOKHALE, RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 992 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
v. 
SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH, SANGLI AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2565 of 2006) 
OCTOBER 21, 2013 
[H.L. GOKHALE AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
c 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - ss. 25FF, 25F and 25N -
Termination of services of workmen - Due to transfer of the 
undertakings - Labour Court held the workmen's entitlement 
to retrenchment compensation u/s. 25F - High Court held that 
the case was of breach of s. 25N and they were entitled to . 
0 
reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% of back 
wages - Held: The Court in exercise of its power u!Art. 142 of 
the Constitution, to do complete justice held the workmen 
entitled to continuity of service with 25% backwages with retiral 
benefits - In the facts of the case they cannot be reinstated -
E Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 142. 
256 workmen employed with the industrial 
establishment of the State Government, were terminated 
from service. Some of the workmen accepted the 
retrenchment compensation. 163 workmen approached 
F the Labour Court, who directed that there would be no 
reinstatement, but the workmen were entitled to 
retrenchment compensation in accordance with s. 25F of 
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The writ petition u/Art. 
227 of the Constitution against the -0rder of the Labour 
G Court was allowed holding that it was a case of breach 
of s. 25N and not merely s. 25F of the Act. The award was 
set aside on the ground that three months notice or pay 
in lieu thereof was not given and hence the workmen 
were entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. 
H 
992 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SARVA-SHRAMIK 
993 
SANGH, SANGLI 
25% backwages were also awarded. The Writ Appeal 
A 
against he order of Single Judge was dismissed as, not 
maintainable. Hence the present cross appeals by the 
State as well as the Trade Union. 
The State contended that the present case was 
covered by 25FF. The Trade Union claimed relief on .the. 8 
basis of parity with' the other group of to workmen, 
wherein order of reinstatement was granted with 25% 
backwages and the order had attained finality. It was 
contended that any other order deviating from the 
judgment in the case of 10 workmen would result in 
C 
making conflicting orders. The Trade Union also claimed 
100% back wages. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The workmen concerned were engaged as o 
pump operators and chowkidars etc. on 25 lift irrigation 
schemes, which were carrying out the process of 
pumping water. The process of pumping water~is 
specifically 
covered 
under 
the 
definition 
of 
"manufacturing process" under Section 2 (k)(ii) of The 
E 
Factories Act, 1948. Thus, the workmen concerned were 
~ngaged in a "manufacturing process". Once that is 
established; it follows that the activity of the undertaking 
in which they were working, constituted a "factory'; within 
the meaning of Section 2(m) of the said Act. The 
explanation (i) to. Section 25A of the Industrial Disputes 
Act, 1947, covers the "factories" within the definition of 
an "industrial establishment", and therefore Chapter VA 
F 
of the 1947 Act applies to "manufacturing process" of 
pumping water. Hence, it cannot be denied that the 
G 
undertaking in which the workmen concerned were 
employed:was covered under the provisions of 1947 #!ct. 
[Para 19] [1008-G-H; 1009-A-B] 
. 
State of Orissa VS. Dandasi Sahu 1988 (4) sec 12: 1988 
(1) Suppl. SCR 562 - relied on. 
H 
994 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013) 17 S.C.R. 
A 
Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. 
Rajappa and Ors. 1978 (2) SCC 213: 1978 (3) SCR 207 -
referred to. 
2. It may be that all the activities of irrigation 
8 department may not have been transferred, but a separate 
unit thereof, consisting of the 25 lift irrigation schemes, 
has come to be transferred to a sugar factory. In such a 
matter the only claim which the employees of the 
transferor concern can legitimately make, is a claim for 
C compensation against the previous employer, since they 
are not being absorbed under the new employer. [Para 
21] [1009-G-H; 1010-A-B] 
Anakapa//e Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial 
Society Ltd. vs. V\(orkmen and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1489: 1963 
D Suppl. SCR 730 - relied on. 
3. Many of the workmen concerned were engaged 
for a period of about 10 years. Section 25FF of 1947 Act 
contemplates compensation to be paid to the workmen 
E on account of their retrenchment, resulting from tr

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