Satyawan v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hissar & Anr.

Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with, Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside the award dated 14.03.2000 (Annexure-P-9), passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hissar. Counsel for the petitioner/workman contends that the petitioner/workman was appointed as a Cane Kamgar in November, 1994. He continued on daily wage basis till 30.05.1997, when his services were terminated with effect from 01.06.1997. A demand notice was served by him on 30.08.1997 (Annexure-P-1) followed by a supplementary demand notice dated 19.09.1997 (Annexure-P-2). During the conciliation proceedings, the petitioner/workman was given an option by the respondent/Mill to re-join the service. Accordingly, the petitioner/workman joined in December, 1997, and worked till January, 1998, and thereafter, his services were terminated. C.W.P. No. 10771 of 2000. -2- The matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner/workman produced the evidence to show that he had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. This contention of the petitioner/workman was not accepted by the Labour Court on mis-reading the evidence, led by him. The details of the work done by the petitioner/workman with respondent/Mill was placed on record as Ex.W.4 (Annexure-P-7 herewith). This fact is not disputed by the respondent/Mill as it has also produced the same details as Ex.M.1. He on this basis contends that the services of the petitioner/workman were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short “the Act”) and, therefore, the Award dated 14.03.2000 (Annexure-P-9), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hissar, cannot be sustained. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2/Mill submits that the respondent No. 2/Mill stands closed and even the machinery has been sold out. He, however, contends that the respondent No. 2/Mill was a seasonal Mill. It employed workers on daily wage basis during the crushing season and accordingly, the petitioner/workman was also appointed as one of the daily wagers. He contends that the petitioner/workman in his statement as also Krishan Kumar (W.W.2), who was worker's witness, had admitted that it was a seasonal Mill and the petitioner/workman was employed on daily wage basis. He on this basis contends that it was a seasonal Mill, and the termination of services of the petitioner/workman on completion of more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months during the crushing season would not amount to retrenchment and the same would be covered by exception to the definition of retrenchment as provided under Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Act, and, therefore, the petitioner/workman would not be entitled C.W.P. No. 10771 of 2000. -3- to any relief. In support of this contention, counsel for respondent No. 2/Mill relies upon two judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus Ram Kishan and others, (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 653 and Anil Bapurao Kanase Versus Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, 1997 (3) S.C.T. 642. He on this basis prays for dismissal of the present writ petitin. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone the records of the case. The contention as raised by counsel for the petitioner/workman that he had completed more than 240 in service days in the 12 preceding months, even if taken to be correct, still in the light of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) and Anil Bapurao Kanase (supra), no relief can be granted to petitioner/workman as it has come on record and is an admitted position on the part of the petitioner/workman as well that the respondent No. 2/Mill was a seasonal Mill. The details, as has been mentioned and admitted by the parties, given in Annexure-P-7, shows that the appointment of the petitioner/workman was primarily a seasonal appointment. The respondent No. 2/Mill being a seasonal Mill, appointed the petitioner/workman during crushing season and the payment having been made during that period, the petitioner/workman would not be entitled to the benefit of retrenchment. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) has held in paras- 4 and 5 thereof as follow :- “4. 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. C.W.P. No. 10771 of 2000. -4-

5. The question is whether such a cessation would amount to retrenchment. Since it is only a seasonal work, the respondents canot 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 during the season enumerated hereinbefore and when the new season starts the appellant should make a publication in neighbouring places in 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.” In the light of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner/workman. The award dated 14.03.2000 (Annexure-P-9), passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hissar, is in accordance with law and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. At this stage counsel for the petitioner/workman prays that similar directions as has been issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), be issued to respondent No. 2/Mill. In the light of the fact, as has been stated by senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 2/Management that the Mill stands closed, the direction as prayed for by counsel for the petitioner/workman cannot be granted. dismissed. Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 28, 2010. sjks.