LexU.P. STATE SUGAR & CANE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED versus CHINI MILL MAZDOOR SANGH & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 1038 _, __ A U.P. STATE SUGAR & CANE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED v. CHIN! MILL MAZDOOR SANGH & OTHERS (Civil Appeal No.5858 of 2008) B ).. . SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: c Seasonal Workmen engaged in sugar mills during crush- ing season - Allegedly their services utilized during off-sea- son as well - Employer not declaring them permanent - Ref- erence by State to Labour Court- Labour Court held that work- men in question entitled to be declared as permanent - Chai- D lenge to - Dismissed by High Court - Correctness of - Held: .\< - In terms of promotion policy being followed by the employers, promotion from one category to next higher category is sub- ject to availability of vacancies - In terms of the policy, even seasonal workmen have been considered for promotion and E declared permanent - Moreover, such function is clearly a managerial function, which could not have been discharged by the Labour Court- Both the Courts below erred in not con- sidering the relevant aspect of the matter and proceeded on the basis that workmen in question were denied their right to F be categorized as permanent workmen because their services "" - have been utilized throughout the year - Hence, award of Labour Court and judgment of High Court set aside. Respondent Nos.2-15 had been employed by the ap- pellant-Sugar Mill as seasonal workmen. They raised a G dispute that their services had been utilized by the appel- lant throughout the year but they were not declared per- manent and they have been paid salary as being given to seasonal workmen. The State Government made a Ref- erence to the Labour Court to the effect that as to whether H 1038 U.P. STATE SUGAR & CANE DEV. CORP. LTD v. 1039 -), CHINI MILL MAZDOOR SANGH & ORS .. the workmen in question could be d_eclared as permanent A by their employer, what salary/pay scales are to be 'given to them and from which date. The Labour Court held that the workmeri in question came within the definition of permanent workmen, and were, therefore, entitled to be • .J declared as permanent. The Award of the Labour Court 8 was challenged by the appellant before the High Court by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. The questions which arose for determination in this appeal were as to whether the appellant, sugar mill, was c right in utilizing services of the seasonal workmen throughout the year but not declaring them permanent an~ as to whether the Labour Court is ernpo"'!ered to di- rect the employer to declare such workmen as permanent. ---J Allowing the appeal, the Court D HELD: 1.1 In terms. of Standing Order, a muster-roll of all employees, who are not permanent, is maintained by, the different sugar mills and at the beginning of the crushing season the seasonal labour who had worked. E during the previous crushing season are asked to join their duties for the crushing season in their old jobs. It is not denied that the pay scales of the different categories of workmen are different. (Para - 21) [1049,G-H] -..- 1.2 Even when the seasonal workmen are employed F during the off season they are admittedly paid the same wages as are paid to them during the crushing season, which is one of the basic distinctions between them and permanent workmen who are on the rolls of the sugar mills. It is also an admitted position that, in terms of the· G policy followed by the sugar ·mills, promotions are given 4 from one category to the next higher category depend- ing on the number of vacancies as are available at a given point of time. Even in the instant case, of the 39 workmen - referred to in the terms of the Reference, 13 had been H 1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A made permanent by the appellant which supports the case of the appellant that promotion is given from one category to the higher categories as and when vacancies are available and that such function was clearly a mana- gerial function which could not have been discharged by B the Labour Court. (Para - 22) [1050,A-C] 2. This Court is in agreement with the views ex- pressed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the Brooke Bond case as also those of the three.Judge Bench in the Hindustan Lever case. This is not a case of fitment C depem:ling as and when vacancies are available. Both the Labour Court as well as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.