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

PETITIONER: MORINDA CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAM KISHAN AND OTHERS ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/08/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  332            1995 SCC  (5) 653  JT 1995 (6)   547        1995 SCALE  (5)198

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R Leave granted.      We have  heard the  counsel on  both sides.  The Labour Court and the High Court in the impugned judgment dated July 29,1994 made  in CWP  Nos.10033-35 of  1994  concluded  that since the respondents had worked for more than 240 days in a year, they  were retrenched  workmen within  the meaning  of Section 2  (oo) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, ‘the Act].  Consequently, requirements of Section 25F of the Act need  to be satisfied but it was not done. So, held that the retrenchment  is void  and consequently reinstatement of the respondents  was directed.  Thus, this appeal by special leave.      When we directed the appellants to furnish the crushing seasons in  which the  factory worked, they filed additional affidavit and  for the  years 1987-88  to 1993-94,  curshing seasons were given as follows : Crushing Year   Commenced on  Closed on -------------   ------------  --------- 1987-88         7.11.1987     18.4.1988 1988-89        28.11.1988     17.4.1989 1989-90        19.11.1989     30.4.1990 1990-91        25.10.1990      7.3.1991 1991-92        30.10.1991     17.4.1992 1992-93        28.10.1992     16.4.1993 1993-94         2.11.1993     10.3.1994      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.      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

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

Act. Under  these circumstance,  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.      The  appeals   are  accordingly  allowed  but,  in  the circumstances, without costs.