Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Special Leave Petition (civil) 61 of 1998
PETITIONER:
KAPUS EKADHlKAR KARMACHARI SANGH
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/04/2000
BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHARAO & S.N. PHUKAN & S.N. VARIAVA
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2000 (2) SCR 1272
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This S.L.P. has been filed against the judgment of the High Court of
Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dated 28.7.1997 in W.P.(C) No. 2134/1998.
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner (Kapus
Ekadhikar Karmachari Sangh), for quashing the award passed on 27.9.1988, by
the Industrial Court in complaint No. 175 of 1987. The High Court dismissed
the Writ Petition mainly relying upon the Judgment, in Maharashtra State
Co-operative Cotton Growers’ Marketing Federation Ltd. and Anr v. Employees
Union & Anr, [1994] Supp 3 SCC 385. The material part of the order of this
Court reads as follows :
"The State Government under Section 42 of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton
(Procurement, Processing & Marketing) Act, 1971, appointed the Maharashtra
Cooperative Marketing Federation (here-inafter referred to as ’Marketing
Federation’), a cooperative society, as the chief agent to implement the
Cotton Monopoly Procurement Scheme (the ’Cotton Scheme’). The Marketing
Federation was before that date engaged in the marketing of several
commodities. From that date onwards till August 31, 1984, it continued to
act as the chief agent of the State Government for procurement, processing
and marketing of cotton as well. For this purpose it recruited and
maintained a separate section with a separate staff. The staff consisted of
those who were needed throughout the year and those who were needed only
during the season. The cotton trade (which expression will include
procurement, processing and manufacturing of cotton) is mostly in Vidarbha,
Marathwada and Khandesh region, and commences roughly in the first week of
November and extends up to April of the next year. The Cotton Scheme
introduced by the Government has three aspects - (i) procurement (ii)
processing, and (iii) marketing. The first two activities extend over four
to six months in a year depending upon the extent of the availability of
the crop, the third stage, viz., the marketing and also the function of
maintenance of accounts are spread over throughout the year. The seasonal
employees engaged in the said two activities consist of Supervisors etc.
who work at the collection centres and the process-ing centres. On an
average, the seasonal employees are about twice the number of the perennial
employees".
At the time when the S.L.P. came up for admission, this Court passed an
order on 19.1.98 as follows :
"It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in
Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers’ Marketing Federa-tion Ltd. &
Anr. v. Employees’ Union & Anr., reported in [1994] 3 Supp. SCC 385, the
definition of "Cotton Season" was contained in Maharashtra Raw Cotton
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
(Procurement, Processing & Marketing) Act, 1971 was not considered and
therefore the decision required consideration so far as the season
employees are concerned.
Issue notice".
We, therefore, heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We have con-
sidered his submissions in the light of the definition of "Cotton Season"
in Section 2(j) of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing &
Marketing) Act, 1971. Section 2(j) defines "Cotton Season" as follows :
"Cotton Season" means the period from the 1st day of July of any year to
the 30th day of June of the next year (both days inclusive)".
After hearing counsel on both sides, we are of the view that his submission
that this definition was not kept in mind when this Court decided the
earlier matter in 1994 is not correct. A reference to para 15 of the
judgment of this Court in the said case indicates that though Section 2(j)
was not specifically referred to in that para, this Court definitely had
the definition in mind.
This is clear from the following observations made in the said judgment :
"Although some attempt was made before us on behalf of the respondent-Union
to show that the operation of procuring and processing of cotton is carried
on throughout the year, there is nothing on record to support the said
contention. On the other hand, the record shows that out of the three
operations under the Scheme, the procurement and processing of cotton lasts
on an average only for six months from November to April in the principal
cotton regions, viz., Vidarbha, Marathwada and West Kandesh and rarely
extends beyond that period depending upon the cotton crop. In fact, if the
crop is less, the said period ends even earlier. In western Maharashtra,
where there is scant crop of cotton, the procurement and processing season
lasts only for about four months from August to November. Hence the staff
needed for procurement and processing is only for about six months on an
average but never beyond 7 to 8 months in any year. It is only the
operation of marketing which goes on throughout the year and for the
marketing as well as for the maintenance of accounts the staff is needed
throughout the year". We are, therefore, of the view that there is no merit
in the contention A that Section 2(j) was not kept in mind while the
judgment was rendered in the earlier case.
Learned Solicitor General appearing for the respondent has pointed out that
this very point based on Section 2(j), was raised in the review application
earlier and that the said petition was rejected. That would show that the
B Judges who decided the above case were clearly of the opinion that there
was nothing in this very point that was raised in the review petition.
Even on merits, we are of the opinion that Section 2(j) is not of much
relevance as it does not refer to the nature of employment, but only refers
to C the period of the "Season". It has no bearing on the nature of
employment of the various persons during the season.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.