U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. NOW M/S.DOWIALA SUGAR COMPANY LTD. DOIWALA THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR versus NIRAJ KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 898 · Decided: 31-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 11 S.C.R. 898 
A 
U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. NOW MIS. 
DOWIALA SUGAR COMPANY LTD. DOIWALA THROUGH 
ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 
v. 
NIRAJ KUMAR AND ORS. 
B 
(Civil Appeal No. 3002 of 2007) 
JULY 31, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
C 
Labour Laws -
Workman, temporary or seasonal -
Determination of - Workman engaged as weighment clerk in 
mid of the crushing season but not in the next crushing 
season though presented himself - Industrial dispute, 
... 
challenging illegal termination - Order of courts below that 
D workman was seasonal workman - Direction by High Court 
to engage workman in every crushing reason - Sustainability 
of - Held: Not sustainable - Daily rated employees engaged 
during the season by Corporation do not automatically 
become seasonal workmen - If employee is engaged for work 
E of temporary or casual nature, his engagement would be that 
of temporary workman -
Workman did not discharge his 
._
burden that he was engaged as 'seasonal workman' - He 
neither worked in the previous full crushing season nor 
remained in employment during the whole of the second half 
F of the crushing season for holding lien in the succeeding 
crushing season - Mere working during part of the previous 
crushing season does not make him entitled for re-
employment in the succeeding season - Order of High Court 
set aside. 
G 
H 
Appellant Corporation is a seasonal sugar unit. It 
engaged respondent no. 1-workman as weighment 
clerks on temporary/daily wage basis in mid of the 
crushing season and thereafter, his engagement ceased. 
He was not engaged ior the next crushing season 
898 
UP STATE SUGAR CORPN. NOW DOWIALA SUGAR CO. LTD. 899 
DOIWALA THR. ITS EX. DIR v. NIRAJ KUMAR 
) 
though he presented himself. Respondent raised an 
A 
industrial dispute that his services were illegally 
terminated. Labour court held that the respondent was a 
' 
seasonal workman. It directed the appellant to engage the 
!, 
workman in the next season and awarded compensation. 
High Court modified the award by directing the appellant B 
to engage the respondent in every crushing season. 
Hence the present appeal. 
i 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
" 
HELD: 1.1. It is not that the daily rated employees c 
engaged during the season by the Corporation 
automatically become seasonal workmen. If an employee 
is engaged for work of a temporary or casual nature like 
additional workload during a season, his engagement 
would be that of a temporary workman. The burden lay D 
;. 
on the workman to establish that he was engaged as 
'seasonal workman'. There is no material from which it 
can be held that the workman had discharged his burden. 
High Court brushed a.side the objection raised by the 
Corporation that respondenf no.1 was engaged on 
E 
temporary basis by observing that the petitioner has not 
been able to show any perversity in the finding recorded 
by the labour court. The finding recorded by the labour 
court that the respondent no. 1 was engaged as a 
seasonal workman, is based on no legal evidence and 
F 
High Court was not justified in affirming the said finding. 
[Para 15] [905-8-E] 
1.2. Even if it is assumed that the respondent no. 1 
was engaged as a seasonal workman, it is pertinent to 
. 
notice that before the labour court, it was an admitted G 
' 
position that the crushing season 1996-97 commenced 
.i 
from November 11, 1996 and came to an end on May 3, 
1997. The workman was engaged on January 1,1997 and 
worked upto April 15, 1997. These admitted facts would 
amply show that the workman had neither worked in the 
H 
900 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 
A previous full crushing season nor he remained in 
employment during the whole of the second half of the 
crushing season 
1996-9~. The Standing Orders 
contemplate lien of a seasonal workman in the 
succeeding crushing season if he has worked in the 
B previous full crushing season or in the whole second half 
of that crushing season. It is true that 'second half of the 
crushing season' is not defined in the Standing Orders 
but in absence thereof an ordinary meaning of the 
expression "second half of the crushing season" has to 
C be given and that would mean the crushing season be 
divided into two parts and later part of the crushing 
season would be second half of the season. [Para 16) 
[905-F-H; 906-A-B] 
1.3. To be entitled for re-employment in the 
D succeeding crushing season, a seasonal workman has 
to show that he worked i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.