http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

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 R      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.

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