Anil Bapurao Kanase v. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd & Anr.
LOK 1997 (5) SC 76
Equivalent citations: AIR 1997 SC 2698 : 1997 (76) FLR 847 : 1997 (91) FJR 317 : 1997 (5) JT 597 : 1998 (1) LLJ 343 : 1997 (3) LLN 67 : 1998 (1) SLJ 147 : 1997 (4) SLR 586 : 1997 (5) Supreme 646 : 1997 (4) Scale 338 : 1997 (10) SCC 599 : 1997 SCC(L&,S) 1637 : 1997 (2) CLR 383 : 1997 LLR 701
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghirahmad, G.B. Pattanaik, J.
- Case No.
- Civil Appeal No. 3692 of 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9482 of 1997)
Cases referred 1
- InMorindaCo-op.Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan & Ors. LOK 1995 (8) SC 253 : (1995) 5 SCC 653 Referred (Para 1)
Referred in 1
- Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Sowaran Singh LOK 2005 (10) SC 73 Referred (Para 5)
Order
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.