http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2831 of 2007

PETITIONER: Ajnala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd

RESPONDENT: Sukhraj Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/05/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T  

CIVIL  APPEAL NO. 2831 OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6802 of 2004)  

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.  

1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by  Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.  In the writ  petition challenge was to the award of the Labour Court,  Amritsar (in short \021Labour Court\022) dated 27.112002, whereby  alleged termination of services of the respondent was held to  be illegal for want of compliance with the requirements of  Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the  \021Act\022).  The respondent was directed to be reinstated with  continuity of service with back wages.  The appellant\022s stand  was that the workman had not completed 240 days in 12  months preceding the date of termination of the service and,  therefore, the management was not required to comply with  the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.  High Court noted  that the workman had joined the service in 1991.  The services  were dispensed with in the year 1993.  It was noted that the  management which was required to maintain the muster rolls  failed to produce the records to support its contention that  during this period the workman had not completed the  requisite period of 240 days.  Accordingly, the award passed  by the Labour Court was found to be in order and writ petition  was dismissed. 2.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the  workman had not worked for more than 240 days in the  preceding 12 months.  Except bare assertion no material was  produced.  On the contrary the appellant has categorically  stated that the respondent had not worked for more than 240  days. 3.      In this connection reference was made to the assertion  made before the Labour Court that the workman was engaged  on daily wager basis and his services were only seasonal.  It  was specifically asserted that after the season was over the  respondent workman did not turn up and he had not  completed 240 days of service. He was not permanent  employee of the appellant and, therefore, reference was not  maintainable.  Since the workman was employed only for  seasonal work, his services were not to be continued after the  season was over.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

4.      Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand  submitted that the Labour Court as well as the High Court  referred to the material on record and categorically held that  the appellant had been working for more than 240 days.   Certain documents in this regard were referred to.        5.      This Court in several cases has held that the workman  has to prove that the he has worked for more than 240 days.   (See: Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25),  Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar (2002 (8) SCC 400, Batala Coop.  Sugar Mills Ltd.  v. Sowaran Singh (2005 (8) SCC 481). 6.      In Batala Coop. Sugar Mills (supra) it was observed as  under:      \023We find that the High Court\022s judgment  is unsustainable on more than one count. In  Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan  and Ors. (1995 (5) SCC 653) it was observed as  follows:

\0234. 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.

5.      The question is whether such a  cessation would amount to retrenchment.  Since it is only a seasonal work, the  respondents cannot 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 seasons 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.\024  

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant is correct that it was  for the workman to establish that he had worked for more  than 240 days.  Learned counsel for the respondent has  referred to certain materials which have been filed as  additional documents in this case.  These were not part of the  records before the Labour Court or the High Court. It appears  that the High Court did not examine the issues in the proper  perspective as to whether Labour Court did not specifically  deal with the stand of the appellant that the workman had not  completed more than 240 days as he was working as a  seasonal daily wager and after the season was over there was  no engagement.   8.      In the circumstances we set aside the order of the High  Court and remit the matter to the Labour Court for fresh  consideration   9.      Considering the fact that the matter is pending since  long, we request the Labour Court to dispose of the matter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

within three months from the date of  receipt of this order after  due notice to the parties.   10.     The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to  costs.