Holding

Under Section 25‑F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman must prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding twelve months, and the matter must be reconsidered by the Labour Court.

Summary

Ajnaala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. terminated the services of Sukhraj Singh, a seasonal daily‑wage worker. The Labour Court held the termination illegal under Section 25‑F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which requires a workman to have worked more than 240 days in the preceding twelve months, and ordered his reinstatement. The employer appealed, arguing that Singh had not completed 240 days and that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition because the employer failed to produce muster rolls. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving the 240‑day requirement lies on the workman, and the High Court had not properly considered the employer’s contention that Singh was a seasonal worker. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration within three months.

Issues considered

Who bears the burden of proof to establish that a workman has worked more than 240 days under Section 25‑F of the Industrial Disputes Act?
Whether a seasonal daily‑wage worker is covered by the provisions of Section 25‑F?
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the employer’s writ petition without examining the employer’s contention regarding the workman's days of service.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 25-F

Subjects

Industrial Disputes ActSection 25-Fseasonal workerdaily wagertermination of serviceburden of proofreinstatementlabour court

Judgment

AJNALA COOP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. A
v.
SUKHRAJ SINGH

MAY 23, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] B

Labour Laws :

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 :
c
· s. 25-F-Seasonal daily wager-Termination of Services-Held, it was
for the workman to establish that he worked, during the relevant year, for
more than 240 days-Since the Labour Court did not deal with the stand of
the employer that workman had not completed 240 days as required and
he was working as a seasonal daily wager, matter remitted to it for D
consideration afresh.

Services of the respondent, a daily wager, were terminated. The Labour
. Court held the termination as illegal for want of compliance of Section 25:..
F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and directed his reinstatement. The
High Court dismissed the writ petition of the empoyer holding that the E
Management was required to maintain the muster rolls and it failed to produce
the records to support its contention that during the relevant period the
workman, a seasonal daily wager, had not completed the requisite period of
240 days. Aggrieved, the employer filed the instant appeal.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court F
HELD : It was for the workman to establish that he had worked for more
t~~m 240 days. The High Court did not examine the issues in proper
perspective as to whether the Labour Court did not specifically deal with the
stand of the appellant that the workman had not completed more than 240
days and he was working as a seasonal daily wager and after the season was G
over there was no engagement. In the circumstances, the order ofthe High
Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh
consideration. (Paras 7 and 8) (782-A, Bl

779 H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A Range Forest Officer v. S. T. Hadimani, 1200213 SCC 25, Essen Deinki
v. Rajiv Kumar, 120021 8_ SCC 400 and Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v.
Sowaran Singh, (200518 SCC 481, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2831 of 2007.

B From the Final Judgment and Order ~ated 11.12.2003 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Changigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 19172 of2003.

M.C. Dhingra for the Appellant.

· DirieshKumar Garg, Dr. Bheem Pratap Singh and Manoj Kumar Ahmad
C for the Respondent. . ·

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Leave granted.

D I. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by Division Bench of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the
appellant. In the writ petition challenge wast~ the award of the Labour Court,
Amritsar (in short 'Labour Court')dated 27.112002, whereby alleged termination
of services of the respondent was held to be illegal for want of compliance
with the requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in
E short the 'Aet'). The respondent was directed ~o be reinstated with continuity
of service_ with back wages .. The appeUant's stand was that the workman had
not completed 240 days in 12 months preceding the date of termination of the
service and, therefore, the management was not required to comply with the
provisions of Section 25~F of the Act. High Court noted that the workman
F had joined the servic::e in 199 L The services were dispensed with in the year
1993. It was noted that the management which was required to maintain the
muster rolls failed to produce the records to support its contention that
during this period the workman had not completed the requisite period of240
days. Accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court was found to be
in order and writ petition was d_ismissed.
G
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the workman had
not worked for more than 240 days in thepreceding 12 months. Except bare
assertion no material .was produced. On the contrary the appellant has
categorically stated that the respondent had not worked for more than. 240
days.
II
AJNALACOOP.SUGARMILLSLTD.... SUKHRAJSINGH[PASAYAT,J:) 781
1111111!•--
~ 3. In this connection reference was made to the assertion made before A
>
the Labour Court that the workman was engaged on daily wager basis and
his services were only seasonal. It was specifically asserted that after th~
season was over the respondent workman did not tum up and he had not
completed 240 days of service. He was not permanent employee of the
appellant and, therefore, reference was not maintainable. Since the workman
was employed only for seasonal work, his services were not to be continued B
after the season was over.
•/
4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that
the Labour Court as well as the High Court referred to the material on record
and categorically held that the appellant had been working for more than 240
days. Certain documents in this regard were referred to.
c
5. This Court in several cases has held that the workman has to prove
that the he has worked for more than 240 days. (See: Range Forest Officer
v. S. T. Hadimani, [2002) 3 SCC 25; Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar, [2002) 8 SCC
400 and Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. . v. Sowaran Singh, [2005) 8 SCC 48 I). D
_..,_
6. In Batala Coop. Sugar Mills (supra) it was observed as under:

"We find that the High Court's judgment is unsustainable on more
than one count. In Marinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd v. Ram Kishan
and Ors., [1995) 5 SCC 653 it was observed as follows: E
"4. It would thus be clear that the respondents were not working
throughout the season. They worked during crushing seasons
only. The respondents wei:e taken into work for the season and
consequent to closure of the season, they ceased to work. ·'

5. The question is whether such a cessation would amount to F
retrenchment. Since it is only a seasonal work, the respondents
cannot be said to have been retrenched in view of what is stated
in clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act. Under these
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the
Labour Court and the High Court is illegal. However, the appellant
G
is directed to maintain a register for all workmen engaged during
the seasons enumerated hereinbefore and when the new season
starts the appellant should make a publication in neighbouring
'l
places in which the respondents normally live and if they would
report for duty, the appellant would engage them in accordance
with seniority and exigency of work. H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A 7. Learned ~ounsel for the appellant is correct that it was for the
workman to establish that he had worked for more than 240 days. LeamCd
counsel for the respondent has referred to certain materials which have been
filed as additional doc~tnents in this case. These were not part of the records
before the Labour Court or the High Court. It appears that the High Court did
not examine the issues in the proper perspective as to whether Labour Court
B did not specifically deal with the stand of the appellant that the workman had
not completed more than 240 days as he was working as a seasonal daily
wager and after the season was over there was no engagement. 'v

8. In the circumstances we set aside the order of the High Court and
C remit the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration.

9. Considering the fact that the matter is pending since long, we request
the Labour Court to dispose of the matter within three months from the date
of receipt of this order after due notice to the parties.

D I 0. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

RP. Appeal disposed of.

(