Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MORINDA CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAM KISHAN AND OTHERS ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT25/08/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 332 1995 SCC (5) 653
JT 1995 (6) 547 1995 SCALE (5)198
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard the counsel on both sides. The Labour
Court and 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short,
‘the Act]. Consequently, requirements of Section 25F 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 which the factory worked, they filed additional
affidavit and for the years 1987-88 to 1993-94, curshing
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
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
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 retrenchment. 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Act. Under these circumstance, 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 during the seasons
enumerated hereinbefore and when the new season starts the
appellant should make a publication in neighbouring places
in 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, in the
circumstances, without costs.