MORINDA CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD.

A v.

RAM KISHAN AND ORS. ETC.

AUGUST 25, 1995

[K RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) B

lndztst1ial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 2(oo) and 25-F.

Retrenchment-Sugar Factory-Workmen-Working during cntshing season only-Cessation of work consequent to closure of seaso/f-Held such C a cessation is not retrenchment.

The respondent-workmen worked in the appellant sugar factory during the crushing season only and consequent to closure of the season, they ceased to work. On the question whether such a cessation would D amount to retrenchment, the Labour Court and the High Court held 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; the requirements of Section 25-F of the Act having not been complied with their retrenchment was void and consequently they were entitled to reinstatement.

Allowing the Sugar Mills's appeal, this Court

HELD: The respondents were not working throughout the season.

They worked during crushing seasos only. Since it is only a seasonal work, the rest>ondents cannot be said to have been retrenched, in view of what is stated in clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. Under these circumstances, the view taken by the Labour Court and the High Court is illegal. (86-G-H)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 8058-60 G of 1995.

From Judgment and Order dated 29.7.94 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 10033, 10034 and 10035 of 1994.

N. D. Garg for the Appellant. 85 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A S.K. Verma for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

We have heard the counsel on both sides: The Labour Court :>:, d 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 Industries Dispute Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') Consequently, requirements of Section 2SF 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 D which the factory worked, they filed additional affidavit and for the years . 1987-88 to 1993-94, crushing 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 E 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

F 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 retrench- G ment. 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 Act. Under these circumstances, 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 H during the seasons enumerated hereinbefore and when the new season

MORINDACO-OP. v. RAM KISHAN 87

starts the appellant should make a publication in neighbouring places in A 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, m the circumstances, without. costs.

T.N.A.

Appeals allowed.