Judgment

SAWANT, J.:- The crucial question that falls for consideration in the present case is whether the award dated 31-8-1984 of the Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Patankar Award) is applicable to the seasonal employees involved in the present proceedings. To appreciate the controversy between the parties, the facts and events which preceded and succeeded the said award have also to be looked into.

The State Government under Section 42 of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971, appointed the Maharashtra Co-operative Marketing Federation (hereinafter referred to as Marketing Federation), a co-operative society, as the chief agent to implement the Cotton Monopoly Procurement Scheme (the Cotton Scheme). The Marketing Federation was before that date engaged in the marketing of several commodities. From that date onwards till 31-8-1984, it continued to act as the chief agent of the State Government for procurement, processing and marketing of cotton as well. For this purpose it recruited and maintained a separate section with a separate staff. The staff consisted of those who were needed throughout the year and those who were needed only during the season. The cotton trade (which expression will include procurement, processing and marketing of cotton) in Maharashtra is mostly in Vidarbha, Marathwada and Khandesh region, and commences roughly in the first week of November and extends up to April of the next year. In Western Maharashtra, there is hardly any crop of cotton and the season there commences in August and ends in November of the same year. The Cotton Scheme introduced by the Government has three aspects, (i) procurement, (ii) processing and (iii) marketing. The first two activities extend over four to six months in a year depending upon the extent of the availability of the crop. The third stage viz., marketing and also the function of maintenance of accounts are spread over throughout the year. The seasonal employees are needed only for the first two stages viz., procurement and processing which last for a limited period as stated above. The seasonal employees engaged in the said two activities consist of Weighment Clerks, Seed Clerks, Heap Clerks, Ginning Supervisors, Press Supervisors etc. who work at the collection centres and the processing centres. On an average, the seasonal employees are about twice the number of the perennial employees.

It appears that an industrial dispute having arisen between the employees and the Marketing Federation, the same was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal consisting of Shri G. K. Patankar by the reference order of 30-5-1973. The terms of reference show that in all 16 demands of the employees were referred to the said Tribunal and one of the demands with which we are concerned was demand No. 4 relating to permanency. That demand read as follows:

"Demand No. 4: Permanency:- All the workmen who have put in three months aggregate service for 78 or more working days in aggregate in spite of any intervening breaks should be immediately confirmed in writing as permanent workmen."

None of the demands referred to the. Tribunal including the aforesaid demand No. 4 suggested that they related to the seasonal employees. All the demands were in relation to the perennial employees. The statement of claim filed in the Reference by the Union on behalf of the workmen did not also refer anywhere to the seasonal employees. On the other hand, in relation to the aforesaid demand for permanency, it referred to all temporary workmen and specifically pointed out that at that time, there were about 400 workmen who had put in more than five years service. But still they were termed as temporary. It also observed that the work of the Marketing Federation had increased considerably and it required a large number of permanent staff, and that the services of the temporary workmen could be terminated at any time which wa