C.W.P No.836 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.836 of 1998 Date of Decision: 14.07.2009 2. C.W.P. No.837 of 1998 3. C.W.P. No.838 of 1998 Tarn Taran Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar and another ...Respondents Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.2. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?Yes -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The cause of action arises out of the same award in all the three writ petitions and it is being answered altogether by this common judgment. By the impugned award, the Labour Court was directing reinstatement of the workmen with continuity of service and awarded 25% back wages. While doing so, the Labour Court was rejecting the contention of the management that the workmen had been engaged as seasonal workers during the sugarcane crushing season and their services were disengaged as soon as the crushing season was over. It held that the termination of services did not come within the definition of retrenchment and excepted under Section 2 C.W.P No.836 of 1998 -2- (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court reasoned that it had come on record that each of the workman had worked for more than 240 days and a seasonal engagement could not have been employed for such a long period. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the management, which is a Cooperative Sugar Mill, argued that the sugar mills are governed by Punjab State Cooperative Sugar Mill Service Rules and they have been framed under the power granted under Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. The Service Rules, according to him, therefore have statutory force and they regulate the mode of recruitment, the determination of cadre and the respective strength. Learned counsel, Sh. Rahul Sharma states that after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Morinda Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ram Kishan and others AIR (SC) 332, factories were required to maintain a muster roll for all workmen engaged during the crushing seasons and when at every time new season started, the sugar mills should make a publication in the neighbouring places in which the workmen normally lived and if they should report for duty, the factory would engage them in accordance with seniority and exigency of work. According to him, there was evidence through MW-1, who spoke about the fact that the four workmen had been employed only for the sugar crushing season and by the only fact that they had been engaged for more than 240 days, it may not be assumed that they were not seasonal workers or that they had any right to be regularized. 3. The reasoning of the Labour Court accepting the contentions of the workmen have been solely on the basis of length of C.W.P No.836 of 1998 -3- service for more than 240 days which, according to it, was incompatible of the work being seasonal in character. The learned counsel draws my attention even to suggestion to the management witness that the workmen had worked for more than 110 days during the crushing season. When there are specific rules of recruitment for a sugar factory, the employment on daily-rated basis for a period of 240 days would itself not give rise to any special status for workmen to be considered as being entitled to either regularization or that they could not be treated as persons engaged for a particular purpose. 4. The termination of services of the workmen as a result of non-renewing of a particular contract between the workmen and the employer entailed his termination. Here, the fact of employment of the sugar industry employees during crushing season is a matter that the Court can take judicial notice and the nature of the employment as being seasonal is that which obtains through the evidence of MW-1 and what the service rules provide for. There could not have been an employment outside the Service Rules and if they provide for engagement of seasonal workers, it should be taken as established that the workmen did not have a permanent employment and that the services had been requisitioned only for the particular purpose. 5. The ground for upholding the workmen's claim, therefore, is suspect and the finding of the Labour Court in that regard is untenable. The question of compensation under Section 25-F would arise only in case the termination is a retrenchment that falls within the definition of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consistent with the reasoning that I have adopted, it shall be C.W.P No.836 of 1998 -4- impermissible for the workmen to be found entitled to any retrenchment compensation. The award of the Labour Court is, under the circumstances, set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the three cases submits that all the workmen have been reinstated in service subject to the result of the decision in the writ petition. This, according to him, is to make a way for better economies of not to be merely paying wages under Section 17-B and obtaining no benefit from workmen. If the reinstatement has been granted only subject to result of the writ petition, their engagement itself will create no legal right. It would always be open to the management to consider utilizing the services of the workmen in the manner it is provided by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Morinda Co-op. Sugar Mills' case referred to above. Reserving to the workmen only such right as permissible under law, all the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 14, 2009 Pankaj*