C.W.P No.836 of 1998 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No.836 of 1998
Date of Decision: 14.07.2009
2. C.W.P. No.837 of 1998
3. C.W.P. No.838 of 1998
Tarn Taran Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. .....Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar and another
...Respondents
Present: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
None for respondent No.2.
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?Yes
-.-
K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)
1. The cause of action arises out of the same award in all the
three writ petitions and it is being answered altogether by this
common judgment. By the impugned award, the Labour Court was
directing reinstatement of the workmen with continuity of service and
awarded 25% back wages. While doing so, the Labour Court was
rejecting the contention of the management that the workmen had
been engaged as seasonal workers during the sugarcane crushing
season and their services were disengaged as soon as the crushing
season was over. It held that the termination of services did not come
within the definition of retrenchment and excepted under Section 2
C.W.P No.836 of 1998 -2-
(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court
reasoned that it had come on record that each of the workman had
worked for more than 240 days and a seasonal engagement could not
have been employed for such a long period.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the management, which is a
Cooperative Sugar Mill, argued that the sugar mills are governed by
Punjab State Cooperative Sugar Mill Service Rules and they have
been framed under the power granted under Punjab Cooperative
Societies Act, 1961. The Service Rules, according to him, therefore
have statutory force and they regulate the mode of recruitment, the
determination of cadre and the respective strength. Learned counsel,
Sh. Rahul Sharma states that after the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Morinda Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ram Kishan
and others AIR (SC) 332, factories were required to maintain a
muster roll for all workmen engaged during the crushing seasons and
when at every time new season started, the sugar mills should make a
publication in the neighbouring places in which the workmen
normally lived and if they should report for duty, the factory would
engage them in accordance with seniority and exigency of work.
According to him, there was evidence through MW-1, who spoke
about the fact that the four workmen had been employed only for the
sugar crushing season and by the only fact that they had been engaged
for more than 240 days, it may not be assumed that they were not
seasonal workers or that they had any right to be regularized.
3. The reasoning of the Labour Court accepting the
contentions of the workmen have been solely on the basis of length of
C.W.P No.836 of 1998 -3-
service for more than 240 days which, according to it, was
incompatible of the work being seasonal in character. The learned
counsel draws my attention even to suggestion to the management
witness that the workmen had worked for more than 110 days during
the crushing season. When there are specific rules of recruitment for a
sugar factory, the employment on daily-rated basis for a period of 240
days would itself not give rise to any special status for workmen to be
considered as being entitled to either regularization or that they could
not be treated as persons engaged for a particular purpose.
4. The termination of services of the workmen as a result of
non-renewing of a particular contract between the workmen and the
employer entailed his termination. Here, the fact of employment of
the sugar industry employees during crushing season is a matter that
the Court can take judicial notice and the nature of the employment as
being seasonal is that which obtains through the evidence of MW-1
and what the service rules provide for. There could not have been an
employment outside the Service Rules and if they provide for
engagement of seasonal workers, it should be taken as established that
the workmen did not have a permanent employment and that the
services had been requisitioned only for the particular purpose.
5. The ground for upholding the workmen’s claim, therefore, is
suspect and the finding of the Labour Court in that regard is
untenable. The question of compensation under Section 25-F would
arise only in case the termination is a retrenchment that falls within
the definition of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Consistent with the reasoning that I have adopted, it shall be
C.W.P No.836 of 1998 -4-
impermissible for the workmen to be found entitled to any
retrenchment compensation. The award of the Labour Court is, under
the circumstances, set aside.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the three
cases submits that all the workmen have been reinstated in service
subject to the result of the decision in the writ petition. This,
according to him, is to make a way for better economies of not to be
merely paying wages under Section 17-B and obtaining no benefit
from workmen. If the reinstatement has been granted only subject to
result of the writ petition, their engagement itself will create no legal
right. It would always be open to the management to consider
utilizing the services of the workmen in the manner it is provided by
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Morinda Co-op. Sugar
Mills’ case referred to above. Reserving to the workmen only such
right as permissible under law, all the writ petitions are allowed. No
costs.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
July 14, 2009
Pankaj*