Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
ANIL BAPURAO KANASE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/05/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIRAHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appellant-employee wasengagedin the seasonalwork
in theChemistry Section ofthe sugar factory by the
respondent No.1. Sincethe work was over, the services of
the appellant and others were terminated. He sought a
reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for
short, ‘the Act’) contending that thetermination being in
the nature of retrenchment isin violation ofSection25-F
of theIndustrial Disputes Act. The IndustrialTribunal and
the High Court negatived the contention.
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the
judgment of the High Court of Bombay relied on in the
impugned orderMarch 28, 1995in Writ Petition No.488 of
1994 is perhaps not applicable. Since the appellant has
worked for more than 180 days, Since the appellant as
retrenched employee and if theprocedure contemplated under
Section25-F ofthe Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 is applied
to, this retrenchment is illegal. We find no force inthis
contention. InMorindaCo-op.Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Ram
Kishan & Ors. [(1995) 5 SCC 653] in paragraph 3, this Court
has dealt with engagement of the seasonal workman in
sugarcane crushing; in paragraph 4, it is stated that it was
not a case of retrenchment of the workman, but of closure of
the factory after crushing season was over. Accordingly, in
paragraph 5, it was held that it isnot ‘retrenchment ’
within the meaning ofSection2(oo) of the Act. Since the
presentwork isseasonal business, the principles of the Act
have no application. However,this Court has directedthat
the respondent-Management should maintain a register and
engage the workman when the season starts in the succeeding
years in the order ofseniority. Until all the employees
whose names appear inthe list are engaged in addition to
the employees who are already working, the management should
not goin forfresh engagement of new workmen It would be
encumbent uponthe respondent management to adoptsuch
procedure as isenumerated above.
The appealis accordingly dismissed. No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2