JUDGMENT
Nishita Mhatre, J.
1. This petition challenges the order of the Industrial Court in Revision which confirms the order of the Labour Court under which the first respondent was reinstated in service on completion of 240 days.
2. The petitioners employ workers on a seasonal basis during the year. In August 1988, the petitioners employed some seasonal employees including the first respondent herein. Letter of appointment indicates that the appointment was for a temporary period and for the season 1988-1989 which was to last for about four to five months. The services of the first respondent were terminated after the season was over on 15th December, 1988 with effect from 31st December, 1988. Aggrieved by this order, the first respondent filed a complaint before the Labour Court at Sangli under Items 1 and 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Labour Court held that the first respondent was entitled to reinstatement in service as he had completed 240 days and also in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Shripati Pandurang Khade and others, . The Labour Court also directed the petitioners to pay back wages.
3. Being aggrieved by this order of the Labour Court, the petitioners filed revision application in the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision application and confirmed the order of the Labour Court granting reinstatement. The Industrial Court was informed that the judgment on the basis of which the Labour Court had decided the issue had been held to be “per incuriam” by another Division Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. and another v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers’ Marketing Federation Employees Union and another, , and therefore, the judgment in Khade’s case (supra) was no longer good law. However, the Industrial Court observed that although the Apex Court had held that the decision in Khade’s case (supra) was per incuriam, he could not ignore the judgment in Khade’s case (supra) and the ratio in the later judgment of the Apex Court could not be considered. He observed that the Industrial Court could not treat the judgment in Khade’s case (supra) as per incuriam merely because of the observations in the later judgment. On this basis, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the first respondent workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.
4. The Industrial Court has obviously misdirected himself and showed judicial indiscipline by observing that the judgment and the observations in the later case is not binding. The Apex Court in no uncertain terms in the later judgment has said that the judgment in Khade’s case (supra) had proceeded on the footing that the Patankar Award which was applicable to the employees in the petitioners’ concern had directed cotton seasonal employees to be made permanent which presumption was not borne out by the facts. The Apex Court was of the view that the presumption drawn by the other Bench of the said Court in Khade’s case was contrary to the facts and that therefore the decision in Khade’s case (supra) was per incuriam. On this basis, the Apex Court held that since the Model Standing Orders did not apply to seasonal employees, the seasonal employees could not be made permanent merely because they completed 240 days in service.
5. The question in issue in the present case is the same and, therefore, must be governed by the decision of the Apex Court in the later judgment . In view of this, writ petition allowed. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
6. Issuance of certified copy expedited.