Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Anil Bapurao Kanase vs Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd & Anr.

Supreme Court7 May 1997K. Ramaswamy

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an employee is engaged for seasonal work in a sugar factory and the services are terminated upon completion of the crushing season, such termination is not "retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the procedural protections of Section 25-F do not apply. Notwithstanding that retrenchment provisions do not apply to seasonal workers whose services end with the season, the management must maintain a register of such workers and engage them in order of seniority when the season recommences in succeeding years, and must not engage new workmen until all workers on the register have been offered engagement.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

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 RLeave 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.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free