Anil Bapurao Kanase vs Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd & ... on 7 May, 1997 Equivalent citations: AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 2698, 1997 AIR SCW 2666, (1997) 3 SCT 642, 1997 (10) SCC 599, (1998) 1 LABLJ 343, (1997) 91 FJR 317, (1997) 76 FACLR 847, 1997 SCC (L&S) 1637, (1997) 4 SERVLR 586, (1997) 2 LJR 452, (1997) 5 SUPREME 646, (1997) 2 CURLR 383, (1997) 3 LAB LN 67, 1997 LABLR 701, (1997) 4 SCALE 338, (1998) 1 SERVLJ 147, (1997) 5 JT 597 (SC) Author: K. Ramaswamy Bench: K. Ramaswamy 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 Anil Bapurao Kanase vs Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd & ... on 7 May, 1997  1 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. Anil Bapurao Kanase vs Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd & ... on 7 May, 1997  2