Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3002 OF 2007

U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Now M/s Dowiala Sugar Company Ltd. Doiwala Through its Executive Director            …Appellant

Versus   

Niraj Kumar and Ors.   …Respondents

With Civil Appeal No. 4697/2006 Civil Appeal No. 3189/2007 Civil Appeal No. 3190/2007 Civil Appeal No.  3191/07 Civil Appeal No.  3192/2007

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

This  group  of  six  appeals  by  special  leave  involving  

identical  issues  was heard together and  is  being  disposed  of  

by a common judgment.

1

2. In  Civil  Appeal  No.  3002/2007,  both  the  parties  are  

represented  by  their  counsel  and,   therefore,  we  deem  it  

appropriate to take up the facts  from this appeal.

3. The appellants, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited, (for  

short, “Corporation”), is engaged in manufacture of  white crystal  

sugar by vaccum process.  The sugar Unit is a seasonal Unit  

which  functions  for  a  period  of  about  5  months  in  a  year  

depending upon the allocation of  sugar cane to the concerned  

Unit  by   the  Cane  Commissioner,  U.P..  During  the  crushing  

season 1996-1997,   the appellant  engaged Niraj  Kumar,   the  

respondent  no.  1  (for  short,  “workman”),  purely  on  

temporary/daily wages basis.  According to the Corporation, the  

workman was engaged  as weighment  Clerk as an additional  

hand  in  the  mid  of  the  crushing  season  1996-97  i.e.  from  

January 1, 1997; the workman worked upto April 15, 1997 and  

on and after that date,  his engagement ceased.

4. The workman raised an industrial dispute alleging that by  

not  engaging him in the next  crushing  season viz.,  1997-98,  

although  he  presented  himself,  his  services  were  illegally  

terminated.   He set up the case that he had worked with the  

Corporation during the crushing  season 1996-97 from January  

2

1, 1997 for full second part and was, accordingly, entitled to be  

engaged in  next  crushing  season and although he presented  

himself,  he  was  not  given  any  work  and,  thus,  under  the  

Standing Orders his services are deemed to have been illegally  

terminated.

5.  The Corporation contested the claim of the workman and  

set up the case that during the crushing season,  the work load  

in  sugar  Unit  increases  manifold  which  at  times  necessitates  

engagement of additional hands  on daily wages to  cater to the  

additional  workload.    During  the  crushing  season  1996-97,  

sugarcane  purchase  centres  were  allotted  by  the  Cane  

Commissioner  which created  additional  workload  and  for  that  

additional  hands  were  engaged  on  daily  wages  at  various  

centres.  The workman was  one of such additional hands.    He  

was engaged on January 1, 1997 and worked as such  only upto  

April  15,1997 whereafter the additional  workload for  which he  

was engaged, came to an end and, therefore, his engagement  

automatically  ceased w.e.f.   April  15,  1997.   The Corporation  

also  stated that the duration of crushing season 1996-97  was  

from  November  19,  1996 until  May,  1997.   The Corporation  

3

denied that there was any illegal termination of services of the  

workman.

6. Both the parties led  oral as well as documentary evidence  

in  respect  of  their  respective  case.   The  Presiding  Officer,  

Labour Court, U.P. , Dehradun, after hearing the parties passed  

the award on April  17, 2000 holding that by not engaging the  

workman in the crushing season 1997-98 which was to start on  

November 1997, the Corporation can be said to have terminated  

the  services  of  the  workman  illegally.   The  Labour  Court  

directed the Corporation to engage the  workman in  the next  

season and also awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to him.  

7.  The Corporation challenged the award before the  

High Court of Uttranchal at  Nainital.   The principal ground taken  

by the Corporation before the High Court was,  as was the case  

before  the  Labour  Court,  that  the  workman  was  a  temporary  

workman  as  classified  under  the  Standing  Orders   and,  

therefore,  the  direction  of  the  Labour  Court  was not  justified.  

The workman defended the award before the High Court.  

8.     The High Court held that there was no perversity  

in the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the workman  

was a seasonal workman.  However,  taking note of a decision  

4

of  this  Court  in  Morinda  Cooperative  Sugar  Mills  Limited  vs.   

Ram Kishan1 ,  the High Court modified the award by directing  

the  Corporation  to  engage  the  workman  in  every  crushing  

season when the  purchase centres are opened at mill or at  any  

other place.

9. The Standing Orders incorporating the conditions of  

employment  of  workmen in   Vaccum Pan Sugar  Factories  in  

U.P.  define ‘Season’ thus:

““Season” means the period commencing from  the date when the crushing commences till  the date  when  crushing  ends.   Provided  that  for  these  departments  which  are  not  in  operation  when  crushing begins and which continue in operation after  crushing ends,  the “season” so far as it affects the  workmen in those departments,  shall commence with  the date  the department  commences operation  and  shall  end  when  the  department  ceases  to  be  operated.”

10.         Workmen, in the Standing Orders,  are classified  in six  

categories viz. ; (i) Permanent, (ii) Seasonal, (iii) Temporary, (iv)  

Probationers, (v) Apprentices, and (vi) Substitutes.

11. A seasonal workman is:

“One who is engaged only for the crushing season:

Provided that if he is a retainer, he shall be liable to  be called on duty at any time in the off-season and if  he refuses to join or does not join, he shall lose his  

1 JT 1995 (6) SC 547

5

lien as well as his retaining allowance. However, if he  submits  a satisfactory  explanation of  his  not  joining  duty,  he shall only loss his retaining allowance for the  period of his absence.”

12. Under the Standing Orders,  a temporary workman  

is one who is engaged for a work of temporary or casual nature  

or  to  fill  in  a  temporary  need  of  extra  hands  on  permanent,  

seasonal or temporary posts.  

13. It is pertinent to notice that for a temporary workman,  

Standing Orders  do not provide  for any lien of employment in  

the  succeeding  season  based on the  employment  in  the  last  

preceding  season.  As  regards,  seasonal  workmen,  there  are  

special  conditions.    Clause  K(1)  of  the  Standing  Orders  is  

relevant for this purpose which reads thus:

“  K. Special conditions governing employment of  seasonal workmen-

1. A  seasonal  workman who has  worked  or,  but  for  illness  or  any  other  unavoidable  cause,  would have worked under a factory  during the whole  of the second half of the last preceding season will be  employed by the factory in the current season.

Explanation  –  Unauthorised  absence  during  the  second  half  of  the  last  preceding  season  of  a  workman has not been validly dismissed under these  Standing Orders and of a workman who has been re- employed by the management in the current season,  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  condoned  by  the  management.”

6

14. The  question  that  falls  for  our  consideration   is:  

whether in the facts noticed above, the workman was engaged  

as a temporary workman or seasonal workman and whether he  

is entitled to be re-employed in the succeeding year?

15. It  is  not  that  the  daily  rated  employees  engaged  

during  the  season   by  the  Corporation  automatically  become  

seasonal  workmen.  If  an employee is engaged for work of a  

temporary  or  casual  nature  like  additional  workload  during  a  

season, his engagement would be that of a temporary workman.  

Having perused  the award of the Labour Court carefully,  we  

find  it  difficult  to  fathom  on  what   basis  the  Labour  Court  

recorded the finding that the first respondent was engaged  as  

seasonal workman. The burden lay on the workman to establish  

that  he  was  engaged  as  ‘seasonal  workman’.  There  is  no  

material  from  which  it  can  be  held  that  the  workman  has  

discharged his  burden.   The High Court  brushed  aside  the  

objection raised by the Corporation that respondent no.1  was  

engaged on temporary basis in one line by observing that the  

counsel  of  the  petitioner  has  not  been  able  to  show  any  

perversity in the finding recorded by the Labour Court.  In our  

view,   the  finding  recorded  by  the  Labour  Court  that  the  

7

respondent  No.  1  was  engaged  as  a  seasonal  workman,  is  

based on no legal evidence and High Court was not justified  in  

affirming the said finding.

16. Even if we assume  that the respondent no. 1 was  

engaged  as a seasonal workman, it is pertinent to notice that  

before the Labour Court,  it was an admitted position that the  

crushing season 1996-97 commenced from November 11, 1996.  

That  the   season  came to  an  end  on  May 3,  1997  was  not  

disputed.   It  was also an admitted position before the Labour  

Court that the workman was engaged on January 1, 1997 and  

worked upto April 15, 1997. These admitted facts would amply  

show that the workman had neither worked in the previous full  

crushing season nor  he remained  in  employment  during  the  

whole of the second  half of  the crushing season 1996-97.   The  

Standing Orders contemplate lien of a seasonal workman  in the  

succeeding crushing season if he has worked in the previous full  

crushing season or  in  the whole  second half  of  that  crushing  

season.  It is true that  ‘second half  of the crushing  season’ is  

not defined in the Standing Orders but in absence thereof an  

ordinary meaning of the expression  “second half of the crushing  

season”  has to   be  given and that  would  mean the crushing  

8

season be divided into two parts and later part  of the crushing  

season would be  second half of the season.

17. To be entitled for  reemployment in the succeeding  

crushing  season,  a seasonal  workman has to show that  he  

worked in the previous full crushing season or in whole of the  

second  half  of  the  last  preceding  year.   Merely  because  

workman has worked during the part of the previous crushing  

season,  he does not become entitled for re-employment in the  

succeeding season. If  a claim of re-employment is based  on  

engagement in the second half of season, such engagement has  

to be for full second half of the season i.e. until the end of that  

season.  In view of the admitted facts  that have come on record  

and  legal  position  discussed  above,  the  conclusion  is  

inescapable that  workmen in these appeals have no right to be  

re-employed  in  the  succeeding  crushing  season.     We  are,  

therefore, unable to uphold the decision of  the High Court.    

18. Before we part with the judgment, we may observe  

that  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Morinda Cooperative  Sugar  

Mills Limited 1 referred to  by the High Court in its judgment has  

no application to the present fact situation and the High Court  

was not right in directing the Corporation to engage the workman  

9

in every crushing season as and when the purchase centres are  

opened at  mill or at any other place based on that  judgment.

19. As a result  of  foregoing discussion,  these appeals  

have to be allowed and are allowed.  The judgment of the High  

Court and the award  impugned  in the present appeals are set  

aside.  The parties will bear their own costs.

 ……………………J (Tarun Chatterjee)

…….……………..J         (R. M. Lodha)

New Delhi July  31, 2009.

10