IMPORTANT POINT
Provisions of Section 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act would have no application in a case where Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act is attracted.

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(oo)(bb), 25F, 25G and 25H - Retrenchment - Appellant, a cooperative society, operated sugar mill which was seasonal industry - Respondent was appointed as seasonal workman on daily wage basis - Respondent raised industrial dispute - Labour Court found that respondent had not completed continuous service for 240 days during twelve months preceding termination but appellant violated provisions of Section 25G of the Act by not calling respondent for subsequent crushing season and called his juniors - Court ordered reinstatement - High Court declined to interfere in writ - Appeal - Labour Court derived its jurisdiction from terms in reference - Provision requiring management to maintain seniority list would have no application in a case where Section 2(oo) (bb) was attracted - Termination of services of a workman as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment on its expiry would not attract definition of term ‘retrenchment’ - Impugned order was liable to be set aside.
       Held : The Labour Court derived its jurisdiction from the terms in reference. It ought to have exercised its jurisdiction within the four corners thereof. (Para 7)
       The principal question which was referred by the State Government was as to whether the termination of services of the respondent was justified. The Labour Court was, therefore, not required to go into the question as to whether the appellant was bound to take the services of the respondent in all subsequent seasons or not. (Para 8)
       We are not oblivious of the distinction in regard to the legality of the order of termination in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies on the one hand, and a situation where Section 25-G thereof applies on the other. Whereas in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination, in a case where he invokes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H thereof he may not have to establish the said fact. [See Central Bank of India vs. S. Satyam & Ors. (1996) 5 SCC 419, Samishta Dube vs. City Board, Etawah & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 14, Regional Manager, SBI vs. Rakesh Kumar Tewari (2006) 1 SCC 530 and Jaipur Development Authority v. Ram Sahai & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 4626 of 2006 decided on 31st October, 2006].(Para 9)
       However, category-wise seniority is required to be maintained when different categories of workmen are appointed so as to apply the principle of last-cum-first go. A seniority list is also required to be maintained so as to enable the employer to offer services to the retrenched employees maintaining the order of seniority. The said provisions, however, would have no application in a case where Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act is attracted.(Para 10)
       Termination of services of a workman as a result of non-renewal of the contract of employment on its expiry or termination of such contract of appointment under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein would, thus, not attract the definition of the term retrenchment.(Para 11)
       For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - Leave granted.

2. Appellant is a cooperative society. It is registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It operates a sugar mill. It is said to be a seasonal industry. At the beginning of the season, workmen are recruited and they are retrenched at the end of it. Respondent was appointed as a seasonal workman. He was appointed on daily wage basis. On or about 14.03.1992, he raised an industrial dispute in terms of Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") pursuant whereto or in furtherance whereof the State of Punjab in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act referred the following dispute to the Labour Court by a notification dated 8.07.1996:

"Whether termination of services of Sh. Harmesh Kumar workman is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/ exact amount of compensation is he entitled?"

3. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur opining that the workman has not been able to establish that he had worked for 240 days held that the respondent having not been called by the appellant in the subsequent crushing seasons and also having called his juniors violated the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act. He, therefore, passed the following award:

"In the result, in view of my findings on the above issue, I pass an award directing the respondent to reemploy the workman from the season in which juniors to him were called and workman was not called. The workman shall also be entitled to back wages, etc. with all allied and monetary benefits which are granted to his juniors from their joining when workman was not called..."

4. A writ petition was filed by the appellant herein questioning the legality and/or validity of the said award and by reason of the impugned judgment a Division Bench of the High Court rejected the contention raised by the appellant herein that the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act cannot be said to have any application in the instant case stating:

"We, however, find no merit in this argument for the reason that a positive finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that persons junior to the workman had been retained and it is also admitted by the Management that they had not offered any appointment to the respondent on account of pendency of the dispute in Court. We are of the opinion that had it been the case of the Management that the exigencies of services did not warrant his re-employment, something could be said in its favour but this is not the case of the Management. No offer was made to the workman on account of the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court."

5. The fact that the appellant operates a seasonal factory and the respondent had not been in continuous service for 240 days during twelve months preceding his termination is not in dispute.

6. Contention of the appellant is that the termination of the respondents services did not come within the purview of the term retrenchment as contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

7. The Labour Court derived its jurisdiction from the terms in reference. It ought to have exercised its jurisdiction within the four corners thereof.

8. The principal question which was referred by the State Government was as to whether the termination of services of the respondent was justified. The Labour Court was, therefore, not required to go into the question as to whether the appellant was bound to take the services of the respondent in all subsequent seasons or not.

9. We are not oblivious of the distinction in regard to the legality of the order of termination in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies on the one hand, and a situation where Section 25-G thereof applies on the other. Whereas in a case where Section 25-F of the Act applies the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during twelve months preceding the order of termination, in a case where he invokes the provisions of S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1108

IMPORTANT POINTProvisions of Section 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act would have no application in a case where Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act is attracted.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
Provisions of Section 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act would have no application in a case where Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Act is attracted.