Employers must adhere to agreements for minimum employment periods for seasonal employees, and employees are entitled to wages for the actual number of days falling short of the agreed period, minus any wages already paid and other deductions.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Impugns an Order dated January 8, 1986 made by the Industrial Court, Nasik, in Complaint (ULP) No. 75 of 1985.

2. The Petitioner is a Federation of Co-operative Societies of Cotton Growers in Maharashtra. The First Respondent is the President of the Maharashtra Marketing Federation Employees Union, Dhule, and is a seasonal employee.

3. Cotton-growing being a seasonal industry, the Petitioner and its predecessor, Maharashtra State Marketing Federation Ltd., used to give employment to seasonal employees during different periods during different seasons. There was a demand made by the employees of the petitioner-Corporation that a minimum guaranteed term of employment in each season should be made available to the seasonal employees during the season. The State of Maharashtra appointed a Commission, known as Bhuibhar Commission, which recommended, vide Recommendation 35, that seasonal employees employed in the State, except in Western Maharashtra, should be continued at least for a period of six months in every season. This recommendation was accepted by the State Government, and, under an Agreement dated January 18, 1984, the Petitioner's predecessor also agreed to implement the said recommendation.

4. During the season 1984-85, the First Respondent was employed on January 8, 1985, and his services were terminated on May 24, 1985. The First Respondent moved a complaint before the Industrial Tribunal, Nasik, being Complaint (ULP) No. 75 of 1985, alleging an Unfair Labour Practice within the meaning of Item 9 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. & P. U. L. P. Act, 1971, on the part of the Petitioner-Corporation. He alleged that, despite an Agreement to give a minimum of six months' employment, he had been removed from service before the said period of six months could be completed. The Industrial Court tried the complaint, and came to the conclusion that the Petitioner-Corporation had engaged in an Unfair Labour Practice within Item 9 of Schedule IV by failure to implement the Agreement in question. In this view of the matter, the Industrial Court directed wages for the limited period which fell short of six months during the seasons 1984-85.

5. Mr. Pai learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, contends that the operative order in the impugned judgment would suggest that the First Respondent would be entitled to wages for the period up to the middle of June 1985, when the 1984-85 season itself came to an end. He contends that the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to do this, as the order would disturb the seasonal working of the Petitioner-Corporation.

6. In my view, a careful reading of the Industrial Court's judgment would suggest that all that the learned Judge of the Industrial Court had in mind was that the First Respondent should be paid wages for the actual number of days falling short of six months, for which he had been deprived of work. In other words, the First Respondent would be entitled to wages for six months from January 8, 1985, minus the wages already paid to him for the period January 8, 1985 to May 24, 1985 and also minus the wages of 15 days as the learned Judge has indicated as deductible under the Circular dated March 30, 1985. Mr. Kochar, learned Advocate appearing for the first Respondent, does not dispute that this was the real intention of the Industrial Court Judge and this is all that the First Respondent is entitled to. In view of this agreed position, there is no further controversy in the petition, which needs to be resolved by a judgment of this Court.

7. In view of this agreed situation, the parties shall implement the impugned Order of the Industrial Court, as understood hereinabove. The petitioner is not pressed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.