ANIL BAPURAO KANASEversusKRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. AND ANR.

                         ANIL BAPURAO KANASE                                A
                                         v.                  0
          KRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.
                        ANDANR.

                                MAY 7, 1997
                                                                            B
                  [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
                        AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

        Labour Law
                                                                            c
        Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

       Ss.25-F and 2(oo)(bb)-Sugar factory-Seasoiial worker--Disengage-
ment after the season is over-Held, is not retrenchment-However, Manage-
ment should maintain a register of such employee~When the season starts
in the succeeding year, the workmen should be engaged according to the D
seni01ity and, until all such workmen are engaged, Management should not
recruit new workmen.

        Marinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan & Ors., [1995] 5 SCC
653, relied on.
                                                                            E
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3692 of
1997.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.95 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 488 of 1994.
                                                                            F
        Nikhil M. Sakhardande and Nandini Gore for the appellant.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        Leave granted.
                                                                            G
      The appellant -employee was engaged in the seasonal work in the
Chemistry Section of the sugar factory by the respondent No. 1. Since the
work was over, the services of the appellant and others were terminated.
He sought a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short,
'the Act') contending that the termination being in the nature of retrench- H
                                    259
        2"0                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 1 S.CJl.

    A ment is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
        Industrial Tribunal and the High Court negatived the contention.
                  0                                             -

               Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment of the
        High Court of Bombay relied on in the impugned order dated March 28,
        1995 in Writ Petition No. 488 of 1994 is perhaps not applicable. Since the
    B   appellant has worked for more than 180 days, he is to be treated as
        retrenched employee and if the procedure contemplated under Section
        25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applied to, his retrenchment is
        illegal. We find no force in this contention. In Marinda Co-op. Sugar Mills
        Ltd. v. Ram Kishan & Ors., (1995] 5 SCC 653 in paragraph-3, this Court
    C   has dealt with engagement of the seasonal workman in sugarcane crushing;
        in paragraph 4, it is stated that it was not a case of retrenchment of the ·-·
        workman, but of closure of the factory after crushing season W.s over. _
        Accordingly, in paragraph 5, it was held that it is not 'retrenchment' within
        the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act. As a consequence the appellant
/
        is not entitled to retrenchment as per clause (bb) of Section 2( oo) of the
    D   Act. Since the present work is seasonal business, the principles of the Act
        have no application. However, this Court has directed that the respondent-
        management should maintain a register and engage the workmen when the
        season starts in the succeeding years in the order of seniority. Until all the
        employees whose names appear in the list are engaged in addition to the
    E   employees who are already working, the management should not go in for
        fresh engagement of new workmen. It would be encumbent upon the
        respondent management to adopt such procedure as is enumerated above.

               The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

        R.P.                                                        Appeal dismissed.