PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS v. Phool Singh Another. WRIT PETITION No

Smt. Dashai Bai. widow of Cheaduram Resldent ef village Biarpa. Post BTandripani. Btslrict Basteer 5 2. The Bt-esiding 0£fic»c, Labonr Court., Jagdalpur ^TAII»S OF 1HE EEETTION '3^*<(i<(iciq,'®g1wiic,"fartl'yl^<. •u/.P /vp °>^9/:<c"^3 SF^IQO Nraeii «>*<«<» 3|]^ 'qSI% ('yi^i'iS) <i>i's(i<li<il'i "RF^ TF;fe1^ <fa^i< ^taifinsiRSi S.B: Hon'NeShriSatish K. Agnih^tri, J.)

25.02.2013 W.P. Nw, 98i^4> 965. ^6.967. W8.988.9TO. 990,991. TO2&^tof30(M. Shri V.V.S.Murthy, Dy. Atl/oote Generat for the State/ pefitioneis. Shri Alok Batehi & Shri Ar(l Panctey, Advocates for the respecUve respondenfe. Heatd ; As requested, eaU on 05* app^ringg|o@||||^figpei|ga^tt been co!;n^|SWffi®B||sS|Bn8|the )4ardi, 2013, to enable teamed cnunsel oj'hether the onier ^ssgcyn appeal has ||the respondents employee^and granBng Sd/- satish^A^,^ Judge ;a-HC—78 3)A?t ^I ft-fi* ^isff ^ti^l st*+iic(t IISiB ^Y. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 963 of 2000 PETITIONER : The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Phool Singh & Another. WRIT PETITION No. 992 of 2000 PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Bhursuram & Another. ^^•^ ^ WRIT PET1TION No.993 of 2000 '^ ^r'^S^^^a^ ;R; PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Smt. Malti Another. 'Bai WRIT PETITION No.991 of 2000 and Smt. Jagna Devi & PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh." RESPQNDENTS VERSUS Secretary, Jai Prakash Memorial Centre, Kirandul & Another. WRIT PETITION No.964 of 2000 PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPQNDENTS VERSUS Sagar Singh & Another. WRIT PETITION No. 968 of 2000 PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS General Secretary, Baster Kosha Mazdoor Sangh & Another. WRIT PETITION No. 988 of 2000 PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Domu and Ghoteram & Another. WRIT PETITION No. 989 of 2000 PETITIONER The State o( Maslhya Bradesh. ,•• RESPONDENTS VERSUS Smt. Dashai Bai & Another. WRIT PETITION No. 966 of 2000 PETITIONER The State of Madhya Rradesh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS General Secretary, Bastar Kosha Mazdoor Sangh & Another. WRIT PETITION No.967 of 2000 PETITIONER The State of ^4adhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS VER S U S General Secretary, Baster Kosha Mazdoor Sangh & Another. WRIT PETITION No. 965 ot 2000 PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Sonu Ram and Mansaran & Another. WRIT PETITION No. 990 of 2000 PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. B^^l^^slij': B:®iiS!as RESPQKDENTS VB 8 S U» General Secretary, Baster Kosha Mazdoor Sangh & Another. Present: Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi and Shri Anil Pandey, Advocates for the respective respondent No. 1. PETITJON_UNDER_ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. OR_DE R (OP EN COU RT) (Passed on 05th day of March, 2013)

1. Since all the above writ petitions viz. 963 of 2000, 992 of 2000, 993 of 2000, 991 Of 2000, 964 of 2000, 968 of 2000, 988 of 2000, 989 of 2000, 966 of 2000, 967 of 2000, 965 of 2000 and 990 of 2000 involve common facts and question of law, thus, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These are the petitions filed by the State Government against the order of th» l.-teewr eeurt, whnrsbv tha l.abour oourt has dirscted the petitioner to reinstate the private respondent No. 1 (In all the writ petitions) in service with full back-wages.

3. In an identical case, the High' Court of Madhya Pradesh, in Assistant Director, Resham Kendra, Mandsaur v. Industrial Court & Others , filed by the employer against the order dated 10.08,.1994 passed by the Labour Court, Mandsaur, whereby the Labour Court held that the termination of the respondent/employee therein, was retrenchment as definedunder section 2(00) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (forshort 'theAct, 1947'), directed the employer to reinstate the workman without backwages.

4. The issue involved herein is identical to that of order passed in Assistant Director, Resham Kendra, Mandsaur v. Industrial Court & Others (supra), except that the area therein, was Mandsaur and here, it is Jagdalpur. The respondenVemployees in those writ petitions .filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh as well as the private respondents herein, were appointed in the same manner as seasonal workers and under the same terms and conditions,

5. The High CQyrt of Madhya Pradesh, after having heard the parties and also relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan & Otherss, held that the seasonal employees do •W.P.No. 1047/1995 2AJR 1996 SC 332 1 not come under the definition of section 2((oo) of the Act, 1947 and accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court was quashed. However, the petitioner/employer therein was directed to maintain a register of workman, as under: "7. Petitioner is, however, directed to maintain a register of workmen engaged and when requires workmen, engage fhem petitioner according to seniority and exigency of work. Petitioner shall further make publication the list, directed to be prepared, neighbouring places in which the workmen normally live and if such workmen report for them in accordance with seniority and exigency of work." petitioner would engage

6. In the instant cases, the Labour Court completely ignored the aforestated judgment and order passed by the H!gh GQUrt of Madhya Pradesh whlch Is exactly on the same set of facts except the different dates. The Labour Court failed to appreciate that working of 240 days has to be in the preceding year in the total session as the respondents had worked as seasonal workers. Thus, the order of the passed by the Labour Court is not only contrary to the facts but also contrary to the well established law and is accordingly quashed.

7. In view of the above, all these petitions are accordingly allowed in terms of the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Assistant Director, Resham Kendra, Mandsaur v. Industrial Court & Others (supra) i.e. cessation of work of a seasonal worker is not retrenchment and thus, the Labour Court has misdirected itself while passing the award. The petitioner is, however, directed fo maintain a register of workmen engaged and when the pgtjtiQner rgquires workmen, engage them accQFding to seniority and exigency of the work. Petitioner shall further make publication of the list, dirscted to be prepared, in neighbouring places in which the workman normally live and if such workman report for duty, petitioner would engage them in accordance with seniority and exigency of work.

8. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.AgnawW Judge ^^ h«y

Smt. Dashai Bai. widow of Cheaduram Resldent ef village Biarpa. Post BTandripani. Btslrict Basteer 5 2. The Bt-esiding 0£fic»c, Labonr Court., Jagdalpur ^TAII»S OF 1HE EEETTION '3^*<(i<(iciq,'®g1wiic,"fartl'yl^<. •u/.P /vp °>^9/:<c"^3 SF^IQO Nraeii «>*<«<» 3|]^ 'qSI% ('yi^i'iS) <i>i's(i<li<il'i "RF^ TF;fe1^ <fa^i< ^taifinsiRSi S.B: Hon'NeShriSatish K. Agnih^tri, J.)

25.02.2013 W.P. Nw, 98i^4> 965. ^6.967. W8.988.9TO. 990,991. TO2&^tof30(M. Shri V.V.S.Murthy, Dy. Atl/oote Generat for the State/ pefitioneis. Shri Alok Batehi & Shri Ar(l Panctey, Advocates for the respecUve respondenfe. Heatd ; As requested, eaU on 05* app^ringg|o@||||^figpei|ga^tt been co!;n^|SWffi®B||sS|Bn8|the )4ardi, 2013, to enable teamed cnunsel oj'hether the onier ^ssgcyn appeal has ||the respondents employee^and granBng Sd/- satish^A^,^ Judge ;a-HC—78 3)A?t ^I ft-fi* ^isff ^ti^l st*+iic(t IISiB ^Y. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No. 963 of 2000 PETITIONER : The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Phool Singh & Another. WRIT PETITION No. 992 of 2000 PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Bhursuram & Another. ^^•^ ^ WRIT PET1TION No.993 of 2000 '^ ^r'^S^^^a^ ;R; PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Smt. Malti Another. 'Bai WRIT PETITION No.991 of 2000 and Smt. Jagna Devi & PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh." RESPQNDENTS VERSUS Secretary, Jai Prakash Memorial Centre, Kirandul & Another. WRIT PETITION No.964 of 2000 PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPQNDENTS VERSUS Sagar Singh & Another. WRIT PETITION No. 968 of 2000 PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS General Secretary, Baster Kosha Mazdoor Sangh & Another. WRIT PETITION No. 988 of 2000 PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Domu and Ghoteram & Another. WRIT PETITION No. 989 of 2000 PETITIONER The State o( Maslhya Bradesh. ,•• RESPONDENTS VERSUS Smt. Dashai Bai & Another. WRIT PETITION No. 966 of 2000 PETITIONER The State of Madhya Rradesh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS General Secretary, Bastar Kosha Mazdoor Sangh & Another. WRIT PETITION No.967 of 2000 PETITIONER The State of ^4adhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS VER S U S General Secretary, Baster Kosha Mazdoor Sangh & Another. WRIT PETITION No. 965 ot 2000 PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Sonu Ram and Mansaran & Another. WRIT PETITION No. 990 of 2000 PETITIONER The State of Madhya Pradesh. B^^l^^slij': B:®iiS!as RESPQKDENTS VB 8 S U» General Secretary, Baster Kosha Mazdoor Sangh & Another. Present: Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi and Shri Anil Pandey, Advocates for the respective respondent No. 1. PETITJON_UNDER_ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. OR_DE R (OP EN COU RT) (Passed on 05th day of March, 2013)

1. Since all the above writ petitions viz. 963 of 2000, 992 of 2000, 993 of 2000, 991 Of 2000, 964 of 2000, 968 of 2000, 988 of 2000, 989 of 2000, 966 of 2000, 967 of 2000, 965 of 2000 and 990 of 2000 involve common facts and question of law, thus, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These are the petitions filed by the State Government against the order of th» l.-teewr eeurt, whnrsbv tha l.abour oourt has dirscted the petitioner to reinstate the private respondent No. 1 (In all the writ petitions) in service with full back-wages.

3. In an identical case, the High' Court of Madhya Pradesh, in Assistant Director, Resham Kendra, Mandsaur v. Industrial Court & Others , filed by the employer against the order dated 10.08,.1994 passed by the Labour Court, Mandsaur, whereby the Labour Court held that the termination of the respondent/employee therein, was retrenchment as definedunder section 2(00) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (forshort 'theAct, 1947'), directed the employer to reinstate the workman without backwages.

4. The issue involved herein is identical to that of order passed in Assistant Director, Resham Kendra, Mandsaur v. Industrial Court & Others (supra), except that the area therein, was Mandsaur and here, it is Jagdalpur. The respondenVemployees in those writ petitions .filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh as well as the private respondents herein, were appointed in the same manner as seasonal workers and under the same terms and conditions,

5. The High CQyrt of Madhya Pradesh, after having heard the parties and also relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan & Otherss, held that the seasonal employees do •W.P.No. 1047/1995 2AJR 1996 SC 332 1 not come under the definition of section 2((oo) of the Act, 1947 and accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court was quashed. However, the petitioner/employer therein was directed to maintain a register of workman, as under: "7. Petitioner is, however, directed to maintain a register of workmen engaged and when requires workmen, engage fhem petitioner according to seniority and exigency of work. Petitioner shall further make publication the list, directed to be prepared, neighbouring places in which the workmen normally live and if such workmen report for them in accordance with seniority and exigency of work." petitioner would engage

6. In the instant cases, the Labour Court completely ignored the aforestated judgment and order passed by the H!gh GQUrt of Madhya Pradesh whlch Is exactly on the same set of facts except the different dates. The Labour Court failed to appreciate that working of 240 days has to be in the preceding year in the total session as the respondents had worked as seasonal workers. Thus, the order of the passed by the Labour Court is not only contrary to the facts but also contrary to the well established law and is accordingly quashed.

7. In view of the above, all these petitions are accordingly allowed in terms of the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Assistant Director, Resham Kendra, Mandsaur v. Industrial Court & Others (supra) i.e. cessation of work of a seasonal worker is not retrenchment and thus, the Labour Court has misdirected itself while passing the award. The petitioner is, however, directed fo maintain a register of workmen engaged and when the pgtjtiQner rgquires workmen, engage them accQFding to seniority and exigency of the work. Petitioner shall further make publication of the list, dirscted to be prepared, in neighbouring places in which the workman normally live and if such workman report for duty, petitioner would engage them in accordance with seniority and exigency of work.

8. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.AgnawW Judge ^^ h«y