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

PETITIONER: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE PRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/07/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                 CIVIL APPEAL NO 4610 OF 1997           (Arising out of SLP (C) No.9408 of 1997)                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the Punjab  & Haryana  High Court,  made on 23.8.1996 in CWP No. 12867/96 and 12866/96.      The  admitted   position  is  that  the  Haryana  Seeds Development  Corporation  Ltd.  has  been  carrying  on  the business of  distribution of  the certified varieties of the crop seeds  to the  farmers during  Rabi and  Kharif  sowing seasons. As  a consequence,  a number of employees including the salesman  like the  respondents came to be appointed. It is also  on record that due to heavy flood etc., a number of units including  the seeds  sales counter  were closed. As a consequence,  the   services  of  the  employees  have  been dispensed with. The respondent have sought a reference under Section 10(1)(c)  of the  Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short,  the   "Act"].  The   Labour  Court   held  that  the dispensation of  the services  of the respondents amounts to retrenchment within  the meaning of Section 25-F of the Act. As a  result without  giving one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof,  the retrenchment  is bad in law. Accordingly, it passed  the award  which was  affirmed by the High Court. Thus, appeals by special leave.      Section 25-FFF  of the Act regulates the closure of the industry which envisages as under :-      "25-FFF. Compensation to workman is      case of closing down of undertaking      (1) where  an undertaking is closed      down  for  any  reason  whatsoever,      every  workman   who  has  been  in      continuous  service  for  not  less      than one  year in  that undertaking      immediately  before   such  closure      shall, subject to the provisions of      sub-section  (2),  be  entitled  to      notice    and    compensation    in      accordance with  the provisions  of

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

    Section 25-F, as if the workman had      been retrenched;      Provided that where the undertaking      is  closed   down  on   account  of      unavoidable  circumstances   beyond      the control  of  the  employer  the      compensation  to  be  paid  to  the      workman under clause (b) of Section      25-F shall  not exceed  his average      pay for three months."      As a  consequence  of  the  closure  of  the  industry, Section 25-F  of the  Act is  not attracted  and the  rigour imposed thereunder  stands excluded. That was the view taken by this  Court. In  other cases,  that was  also followed by another learned Single Judge of the High Court. In that view of the  matter, the  learned Single  has committed  grievous error of law in not admitting the writ petition.      The appeal  are accordingly  allowed. The  order of the Labour Court stands set aside. No costs.      However, Shri  K.B. Rohtagi,  learned counsel appearing for the  respondents in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit has stated  that all other junior person whose services were dispensed  with  along  with  the  respondents  came  to  be appointed subsequently.  If that  be so, it would be open to the respondents  to make  representations to the Corporation and the Corporation would consider their representations. If any of  the other junior persons were appointed, necessarily the respondents also are entitled for appointment afresh.