Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/07/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA.
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO 4610 OF 1997
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.9408 of 1997)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of
the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on 23.8.1996 in CWP
No. 12867/96 and 12866/96.
The admitted position is that the Haryana Seeds
Development Corporation Ltd. has been carrying on the
business of distribution of the certified varieties of the
crop seeds to the farmers during Rabi and Kharif sowing
seasons. As a consequence, a number of employees including
the salesman like the respondents came to be appointed. It
is also on record that due to heavy flood etc., a number of
units including the seeds sales counter were closed. As a
consequence, the services of the employees have been
dispensed with. The respondent have sought a reference under
Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for
short, the "Act"]. The Labour Court held that the
dispensation of the services of the respondents amounts to
retrenchment within the meaning of Section 25-F of the Act.
As a result without giving one month’s notice or salary in
lieu thereof, the retrenchment is bad in law. Accordingly,
it passed the award which was affirmed by the High Court.
Thus, appeals by special leave.
Section 25-FFF of the Act regulates the closure of the
industry which envisages as under :-
"25-FFF. Compensation to workman is
case of closing down of undertaking
(1) where an undertaking is closed
down for any reason whatsoever,
every workman who has been in
continuous service for not less
than one year in that undertaking
immediately before such closure
shall, subject to the provisions of
sub-section (2), be entitled to
notice and compensation in
accordance with the provisions of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Section 25-F, as if the workman had
been retrenched;
Provided that where the undertaking
is closed down on account of
unavoidable circumstances beyond
the control of the employer the
compensation to be paid to the
workman under clause (b) of Section
25-F shall not exceed his average
pay for three months."
As a consequence of the closure of the industry,
Section 25-F of the Act is not attracted and the rigour
imposed thereunder stands excluded. That was the view taken
by this Court. In other cases, that was also followed by
another learned Single Judge of the High Court. In that view
of the matter, the learned Single has committed grievous
error of law in not admitting the writ petition.
The appeal are accordingly allowed. The order of the
Labour Court stands set aside. No costs.
However, Shri K.B. Rohtagi, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit
has stated that all other junior person whose services were
dispensed with along with the respondents came to be
appointed subsequently. If that be so, it would be open to
the respondents to make representations to the Corporation
and the Corporation would consider their representations. If
any of the other junior persons were appointed, necessarily
the respondents also are entitled for appointment afresh.