Holding

The Patankar Award does not apply to seasonal employees; therefore, the award cannot be used to make seasonal workers permanent.

Summary

The case concerned whether the 1984 Patankar Award of the Industrial Tribunal, which made permanent those workers who had completed 240 days of continuous service, applied to seasonal employees of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation. The Union of seasonal employees claimed that the award, together with certain government letters, required the Federation to make seasonal workers permanent and that terminating them constituted an unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Supreme Court examined the terms of reference, the statement of claim, the Federation’s written statement and the award itself, finding no reference to seasonal employees and concluding that the dispute and the award dealt only with perennial workers. It also held that Model Standing Order 4‑B does not apply to seasonal employees. Consequently, the Court set aside the Industrial Court and High Court orders that had granted permanency to seasonal staff. The appeal was allowed and the orders of the lower courts were vacated.

Issues considered

The Patankar Award’s scope: does it extend to seasonal employees for permanency?
Whether Model Standing Order No. 4‑B applies to seasonal employees.
Whether the Union’s claim of unfair labour practice under Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, is maintainable.
Whether the government letters dated 9 Nov 1984 and 18 Jan 1985 alter the effect of the award with respect to seasonal staff.

Legislation cited

Subjects

labour lawindustrial disputepermanencyseasonal employeesaward interpretationunfair labour practicemodel standing orderscotton monopoly procurement scheme

Judgment

MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE COTTON GROWERS' A
MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. AND ANR.
v.
MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE COTTON GROWERS'
MARKETING FEDERATION EMPLOYEES UNION AND ANR.

JANUARY 24, 1994
B

[P.B. SAWANT AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.]

Service and Labour Law: Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton
Growers' Marketing Federation-Cotton Monopoly Procurement C
Scheme--Perennial and seasonal employees engaged by Federation-Dispute
regarding permanency of employees-Reference to Industrial
Tribunal-Award, known as Patankar Award, directing that those employees
who had put in 240 days of continuous service should be treated as permanent
employees-Temporary perennial employees made permanent as per D
Award-Application by Union of seasonal employees after 6 years of Award,
claiming permanency of seasonal employees on the basis of Patankar
Award-Held, Patankar Award does not refer to seasonal employees-In-
dustrial Tribunal was not called upon to adjudicate dispute with regard to
permanency of seasonal employees nor the Award had directed seasonal
employees to be made permanent. E
Seasonal employment and seasonal employees-Difference be-
tween-Explained.

Model Standing Order 4-B-Held, does not apply to seasonal
employees. F
The Maharashtra Cooperative Marketing Federation appointed by
the State Government as its chief agent to implement the Cotton. Monopoly
Procurement Scheme, employee seasonal employees for procurement and
processing of cotton as the activities extended over 4-6 months in a year. G
For the purpose of marketing and maintenance of accounts which ac-
tivities continued throughout the year the Federation engaged perennial
employees. Seasonal employees ~umbered twice the number of perennial
employees.

In the year 1973 an industrial dispute arose between the Marketing H
289
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 1 S.C.R.

A Federation and its employees. The Government, by an order dated 30th
May, 1973, referred to the Industrial Tribunal the dispute which included
the demand of the employees that the workmen who had put in three
months aggregate service for 78 or more working days in aggregate, should
be confirmed. The Tribunal by its award dated 31st August, 1984, known
as the Patankar Award, held that the employees who had put in 240 days
B of continuous service would be treated as permanent employees. Conse-
quently, the temporary perennial employees were made permanent but the
seasonal employees continued as such without demur.

Later the Marketing,Federation was replaced by the Maharashtra
C State Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd., appellant No. 1. The
entire staff of the Marketing Federation including the seasonal staff
engaged under the Cotton Scheme was taken over by the appellant-Federa-
tion on the terms and conditions applicable under the previous arrange·
ment.
D
The respondent-Union of the seasonal employees, in 1990, filed a
complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and P-
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, contending that the
Patankar Award had directed the Marketing Federation to make per-
manent the seasonal employees who had completed 240 days of service and
E since those seasonal employees who had worked for 240 days in 1982-83
and 1983-84 cotton seasons were not made permanent there was unfair
labour practice under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV to the Act. The
respondent-Union claimed to quash the termination of service of the said
employees at the end of the season and to make them permanent from the
p date they completed 240 days of continuous service in 1983-84 cotton
season. The Industrial Court allowed the claim. It directed the appellants
not to terminate the services of the seasonal employees with effect from
30.4.1991), to absorb the said employees in compliance with the provisions
of the Patankar Award and the Agreeml'nt dated 18.1.1984 and also by
giving the benefit of the Government Letter dated 18.1.19&5. The appellant-
G Federation's writ petition and Letters Patent Appeal were dismissed by the
High Court. Hence the appeal by Special Leave.

1t was contended on behalf of the appellant-Federation that the
assumption that the Patankar Award had directed to give permanency also
H to the seasonal employees who had put in 240 days work in a year, was
MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. v. EMPLOYEES UNION 291

. erroneous since the terms of reference, the statement of claim ef workmen A
, --( and the written statement filed by the Marketing Federation indicated that
the dispute related to and, therefore, the relief was given in respect of only
perennial employees.

The respondent-Union of seasonal employees contended that though
there was no specific reference to the seasonal employee!i in either the B
terms of reference or the statement of claim or the Award, in the written
statement the Marketing Federation had referred to the Seasonal
employees and it had understood the demand for permanency with refer-
"t.- ence to seasonal employees.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
c
HELD: 1.1. The Patankar Award does not refer to seasonal
employees. It cannot be said that the Industrial Tribunal was ca!led upon
to adjudicate the dispute with regard to the permanency of the seasonal
employees or that the award made by the said Tribunal had directed the D
seasonal employees who had put in 240 days of work to be made per-
,.. "T"- manent. The direction can be read either as a direction to make the
temporary perennial employees and temporary seasonal employees as
permanent perennial employees and permanent seasonal employees
respectively or as a direction relating only to perennial employees. Bnt in
no case, it can be read as a direction to make seasonal employees as
E
permanent employees, as in the nature of things such a direction, if given,
would have been highly inequitous and discriminatory to the perennial
employees - whether temporary or permanent. 1he procurement and
processing operations under the Cotton Scheme do not last for more than
4-6 months and, in any case, not more than 8 months. To make the F
seasonal employees permanent and give them all the benefits of the peren-
nial employees would mean that they would get the salary and all other
benefits throughout the year without putting in work throughout the year
as the perennial employees have to do. [309-E-H; 310-A, B]

1.2. There is nothing in the statement of claim filed on behltlf of the G

--
Union of employees in support of the demand for permanencY.. of employees
to suggest that the Union had in contemplation the case of seasonal
employees. The statement of claim would show that the Union was con-
cerned with the temporary perennial workmen and not with seasonal
workmen. The Union knew that even among the perennial workmen there H
292 SUPREME COlJRT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A were some permanent and others temporary and they were espousing the
cause of the said temporary workmen. That is also clear from the fact that
the demand is raised in the context of the alleged requirement of the large
number of permanent staff. The Union was particular in pointing out that
the temporary workmen could be terminated at any time. As regards the
seasonal employees, their services are terminated every year, after every
B season and they are re-engaged according to the seniority list for the
successive seasons, as there is seasonal work under the Cotton Scheme
and some workmen have necessarily to be employed for such work. There-
fore, the statement made in the statement of claim could not even remotely
be connected with the seasonal employees. [308-D; 309-A, B] ~
c
1.3. The statements made by the Marketing Federation in its written
statement to the effect that the Union's demand for making permanent the
employees who had put in three month's continuous service was not
justified since the said period was to short to judge the capacity and ability
D of the employee and that it was willing to make permanent those employees
who had completed three years of continuous service, make it clear that
even the Federation had understood the demand as relating only to peren-
nial employees and not to seaso1.al employees. Knowing it fully well that
the Federation had also seasonal employees who had to be continued from
season to season for seasonal work, it could not have made the statements
E in connection with the permanent seasonal employees. The statements of
the Federation pointing out that since it required for carrying out it<i
activities workmen both on temporary basis and on seasonal basis depend-
ing upon the nature of the workload, no period should be laid down in
respect of such purely temporary and seasonal employees and the rule of
F permanency should apply only to employees who were recruited against
the permanent posts and not to those who were purely temporary or casual
employees or seasonal employees, would show that if at all the seasonal
employees were in the contemplation of the Marketing Federation, they
were the temporary seasonal employees and not the permanent seasonal
employees. By the very nature of their employment, the temporary seasonal
G employees can be made perm~nent only as permanent sea~onal employees
and not as permanent perennial employees~ In any case, it cannot be said
that the Federation was referring to the permanency of the permanent·
seasonal employees. [308-G-H; 309-A-E]

H · 2.1. There is a difference between seasonal employment and seasonal
MARKETING FEDERATION L1D. v. EMPLOYEES UNION 293

employees. The employments which are only seasonal may require only A
seasonal employees and there are no perennial employees on their staff.
On the other hand, an employment may have both perennial and seasonal
work as in the instant case, and hence require both kinds of workmen.
Further, seasonal employees may be permanent or temporary. The per-
manent employees are employed from season to season successively and
are entitled on that account for retention allowance and certain other
B
benefits during the off-season because of their permanency as seasonal
employees which is different from permanency a;; perennial employees. The
Temporary seasonal employees are not obviously entitled to the said
benefits as the permanent seasonal employees since the temporary
employees are not engaged from season to season but only when there is C
an increase in work. [306-B-D]

2.2. In the instant case, since there is a need of seasonal employees
and there is no work available to be given to them for a part of the year,
the Cotton Scheme has always to maintain a distinction between the D
perennial employees and seasonal employees and has to provide them with
different service conditions though some of the service condition may be
common. It is the failure to understand the nature of the operations and
the nature of the employment required under the Cotton Scheme which is
responsible for the impugned decisions of the Industrial Court and the
~~~~~~ E
2.3. The fact that even the seasonal workmen and their Uni:m did
not undei·stand either the demand adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal
or the award given by it as referring to the seasonal employees, is clear
from the subsequent events. After the Patankar Award which was given on F
31.8.1984, all the then seasonal employees continued as seasonal employees
throughout, and the Marketing Federation made only the temporary
perennial employees permanent perennial employees as per the direction
of the Award. None of the seasonal employees was made permanent except
when he was recruited in the vacancies occurring in the post of permanent
perennial employees. But that was not because of the Patankar Award. It G
was as per the understanding between the parties. The Union never raised
any objection to the same. The three settlements entered into between the
parties on 12.6.1980, 11.12.1981 and 22.12.1982 not only did not speak a
word about making any seasonal employee who had put in 240 days of
work, permanent, but spoke about all other matters relating to them. H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) 1 S.C.R.

A Besides, the recommendations made by the Bhuibhar Committee as ac-
cepted by the State Government, would show that the seasonal employees i
were not on the agenda of the industrial dispute adjudicated by the
Industrial Tribunal. It categorically stated .that the demand made by the
seasonal employees subsequent to Patankar Award (pursuant to which the
committee itself was <tppointed) for employment throughou~ 12 months
B could not be accepted since the financial burden would f~I on the cul-
tivators and consequently would affect the Cotton Scheme itself. That
recommendation was accepted by the Government. (310-E-H; 311-A]

2.4. The agreement of 18.1.1984 by which the recommendations of the
C Bhuibhar Committee were accepted, shows that the problems of the
seasonal employees were all along kept separate and were dealt with
separately from the problems of the perennial employees. Had the dispute
with regard to the permanency of the seasonal employees been referred for
adjudiration to the Industrial Tribunal and had the Patankar Award
related ~a the seasonal employees, there would have been no need to enter
D into the agreements of 12.6.1980, 11.12.1981 and 22.12.1982. There would
also have been no need to appoint the special Committee to study the
problems of the seasonal employees including the problem of their per-
manency, and there would have been no need for the agreement of 18.1.1984
which followed the recommendations of the Committee. (311-E-G]
E
2.S. The demand of the seasonal employees even before the Bhuibhai:
Committee was to give employinent to them for 12 months. The demand was
not for maJdng them perennial employees. A demand merely for permanen-
cy in their case in effect involves two demands, viz., (i) to abolish the
seasonal employment and to make it perennial and (ii) offer making it
F perennial, to make the erstwhile seasonal employees permanent. These are
two different things and it is the omission to understand the significance of
the said difference, which has led to the present confusion. (312-F, G]

2.6. The letter dated 9.11.1984 only speaks of the employees who were
G with the Marketing Federation to be absorbed on the 'as is' basis by the
appellant-Federation which means that the perennial and seasonal
employees were to be taken over as such employees only. The letter did not
mean that those who were seasonal employees should be taken over as
perennial employees. (314-D]
I

H 2.7. This Court* as well as the High Court, relying upon the letter
MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. v. EMPLOYEES UNION 295

dated 18:1.1985, had assumed that the Patankar Award applied to the A
seasonal employees. The presumption was contrary to facts and, therefore,
the decision was per incuriam. That letter does not improve the matter. The
cases of some of the employees having been decided on incorrect facts will
have, therefore, to be treated as isolated instances and on the basis of such
cases it cannot be said that the seasonal employees wh" have put in 240
days' work should be made permanent perennial employees. (314-H]
B

*Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation
Ltd. v. Shripati Pandurang Khade and Ors., (1989) Supp. 1 S.C.C. 226, held
per incuriam.

3.1. The Model Standing Orders do not apply to seasonal employees.
c
The seasonal employees are governed by their own service conditions,
which have in material respects no relation to the service conditions of the
perennial employees who are governed by the said Model Standing Orders.
(315-B]
D
3.2. By the appointment letters, the Model Standing Orders have
been incorporated in the other service conditions of the seasonal
employees only to the extent that the specific service conditions of the
seasonal employees are silent on the aspects covered by the Model Stand-
ing Orders and which orders would necessarily apply to the seasonal
employees. The Model Standing Orders, therefore, are applicable to the E
seasonal employees mutatis mutandis. It cannot be said that all the Model
Standing Orders are applicable to the seasonal employees. (315-C]

3.3. Model Standing Order No. 4-B in particular does not apply to
seasonal emp-Ioyees. It is applicable to the perennial employees only. It
speaks of temporary workmen in any establishment of a seasonal nature F
or in other establishment during a period of preceding 12 months. The
appellant Federation's establishment is not of a seasonal nature. It is only
some employees employed therein who are seasonal. (315-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5118 of G
1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.1992 of the Bombay High
Court in W.P. No. 2749 of 1990.

WITH H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 s.c.R..

A Civil Appeal No. 5117 of 1992,

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.1992 of the Bombay !figh
Court in L.P.A. No. 9 of 1992.

Dipankar P. Gupta, Solicitor General, V.R. Reddy, Additional
B Solicitor General, V.A. Bobde, A.K. Sanghi, Ravindra Bana, Subodh Dhar-
madhikari and A.S. Bhasme for the Appellants.

R.S. Kulkarni, P. Gaur, Ms. Gunwant Dara, Ms. Nandini Gore and
Jitendra Sharma for the Respondents.
c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SAWANT, J. 1. The crucial question that falls for consideration in
tJ;ie present case is whether the award dated 31.8.1984 of the Industrial
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Patankar Award') is is applicable to
.D 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.

2. The State Government under Section 42 of the Maharashtra Raw
Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971, appointed the
E Maharashtra Cooperative Marketing Federation (hereinafter referred to as
'Marketing Federation'), a cooperative society, as the chief agent to imple-
ment 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
F to act as the chief agent of the State Government for procurement, process-
ing and marketing C'f cotton as well. For this purpose it recruited and
maintained a separate se_ction 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 manufacturing of cotton) in Maharashtra is
G mostly in Vidarbha, Marathwada and Khandesh region, and commences
roughly in the first week of November and extends upto 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 Novelllber of the same
year. The Cotton Scheme introduced by the Government has three aspects,
H (i) procurement, (ii) processing and (iii) marketing. The first two activities
MARKETINGFEDERATIONLTD. v. EMPLOYEESUNIONISAWANr,J.) 297

extend over four to six months in a year depending upon the extent of the A
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., procure-
ment 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
B
etc. who work at the collection centres and the processing centres. On an
average, the seasonal employees are about twice the number of the peren-
nial employees.

3. It appears that an industrial dispute having arisen between the c
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 D
was demand No. 4 relating to permanency. That demand read as follows:

"Demand No. 4: Pennanency:- All the workmen wh~ 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." E

4. 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 F
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 G
work of the Marketing Federation had increased considerably and it re-
quired a large number of permanent staff, and that the services of the
temporary workmen could be terminated at any time which was inequi-
table. In its written statement, the Marketing Federation also proceeded
on the basis that all the said demands· related only to the perennial
employees. While, however, referring to the aforesaid demand for per- H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A manency, the written statement observed as follows:
"9. With regard to demand No. 4" Permanency" the Federation
states all employees who have completed 3 years of continuous
service. The period mentioned in the statement of claim for all
employees who have put in 3 months continuous service for making
B them permanent is too small a period to judge the capacity and
ability of the employee. The Federation, therefore, agrees in prin-
ciple that an employee should not remain temporary for a long
time and 3 months period of service for permanency is too short
for judging the capacity and ability of an employee before he is
c made permanent in the organisation.

10. With regard to the contents of para 13 of the statement of
claim, the Federation states that for carrying out the activities of
the Federation it has to employ workmen either on temporary basis
or on seasonal basis depending upon the nature of work load of
D different activities that the Federation has to discharge at the
instance of the State Government. The Federation, therefore, feels
that no peri~d should be laid down in respect of purely temporary
and in seasonal employment. In the submission, therefore, of the
Federation, the rule of permanency should apply only to employees
E who are recruited against the permanent post and it should not
apply to the purely temporary or casual employees or seasonal
employees who have to be recruited in times of emergency."

5. We have quoted the aforesaid two paragraphs from the said

F
written statement verbatim, for an argument has been advanced by the
respondent-Union of workmen, that notwithstanding the fact that the
•
demands as raised and the statement of claim filed on behalf of the i-
workmen in the Reference did nowhere refer to the seasonal employees,
the reference by the Marketing Federation to the workmen employed on
seasonal basis in the written statement as above, shows that the industrial
G dispute referred to the 1 -ibunal and the Tribunal's award related to the
seasonal employees as well. We will deal with this argument at its proper
place.

6. Shri Patankar while giving his award on 31.8.1984 disposed of the
said demand for permanency in para 19 of the award in the following L
H cryptic language: -
MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. v. EMPLOYEESUNION[SAWANI,J.) 299

19. The next demand is in respect of permanency. It is alleged by A
the Union that the workers who have put in three months of
-~
aggregate service and have put in 78 or more days as working days
in spite of any breaks in service, be made permanent. The Federa-
tion opposes this demand and contends that it is willing to confirm
all the employees who have put in three years of continuous service.
Considering, therefore, the arguments advanced for both the sides,
B
it appears that it would be proper to direct that those employees
who have put in 240 days of continuous service be treated as
permanent employees".

· 7. It will be apparent from the aforesaid portion of the award, which C
is the only direction in the award relating to the said demand that the
direction also did not refer to the seasonal employees. There is no dispute
that after this award, the same system of seasonal employees continued till
the present order dated 14.9.1990 of the Industrial Court with which we
are concerned and from which the present proceedings have arisen. There D
is also no dispute that as per the Patankar Award, the temporary perennial
employees were made permanent but the seasonal employees on the date
of the award continued as such without demur. On the other hand, sub-
sequently, there were four settlements entered into between the Marketing
Federation and the Union of seasonal employees. The first settlement is uf
12.6.1980 and related to (i) revision of consolidated salary and annual E
increment in the consolidated salary of certain categories of the seasonal
employees; (ii) redesignation of some of the categories of the said
employees; (iii) retention allowance to be paid to them; and (iv) absorption
of the seasonal employees in the permanent vacancies in the perennial
posts according to seniority and merit. It may be mentioned here that the F
settlements on increments in the consolidated salary specifically stated that
those of the seasonal employees who had to put in more than three seasons
of employment would be entitled to two increments. So also, the settlement
on retention allowance stated that the seasonal employees on consolidated
salary shall be disengaged at the end of the season, and during the period
of non-employment, they would be entitled to 25 per cent of the monthly G
wages prevailing in the past cotton season and that it would not exceed half
month's wages during the year. It, however, mentions that the retention
allowance would be paid to the seasonal employees till they were
reemployed at the commencement of the next cotton season. The next
settlement is of 11.12.1981. It spoke of the vacancies of the perennial clerks, H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 1 S.C.R.

A stenographe1 . peons and watchmen at the Head Office and Divisional and
Sub-divisional offices being filled in from the seasonal employees on
seniority- cum- merit basis and the seasonal employees above 58 years of
age being not c !igible for such appointments. It also spoke of all vacancies
in class III and IV cadres of the cotton department of the Marketing
B Federation being filled in from among the seasonal employees again on
seniority-cum-merit basis. It then spoke of the seasonal employees, exclud-
ing watchmen, who had put in eleven months or more of employment
during 1979-80 season including technical breaks being regularised in the

c
pay-sea,~ of Rs. 130-400/-. That te1 m of the settlement was clar~fied by -
further stating that the said seasonal employees would be regularised
according to Divisional seniority and on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.
The clarification further mentions that the said appointment would not
--
change the nature of their duties and they would not be paid retention
allowance. The settlement further stated that excluding the said employees
who were regularised, others would be entitled to the interim hikes of
D certain amounts in their consolidated salaries. The settlement also
provided that the agricultural graduates from among the seasonal
employees would be suitably trained and appointed as Graders. This
settlement made an important provision for appointment of a committee
to consider the problems of the seasonal employees. The Committee was
E to consist of a representative each of the cotton cultivators, the Marketing
Federation, the State Government and the seasonal employees. The Com-
mittee was to submit its recommendation before February, 1982 and the
State Government was to take a decision thereon within one month of the
recommendations and implement the acceptable recommendations. The
matters which were to be referred to the Committee were mentioned in
F the schedule to the settlement and they were (i) the strength of the seasonal
employees requ~ed to be employed in every zone considering the nature
of duties, features ,of cotton season etc.; (ii) whether the technical breaks
were _necessary in the case of some of the seasonal employees who were
then employed fo'r nine to twelve months; (iii) ways and means to ensure
G employment for maximum period for seasonal employees; (iv) the strength
of the permanent, i.e., p~rennial employees; (v) pay-scales to be granted
to the seasonal employees who were to be regularised and to decide the
modality of annual increment to be granted to them; (vi) the need to
change the then-·system of paying retention allowance and to suggest
H change in the system.
MARKETING FEDERATION LID. v. EMPLOYEESUNION(SAWANf,J.) 301

8. There is no dispute that pursuant to this settlement, a Committee A
headed by one Shri Bhuibhar was appointed. Before the report of the said
Committee was received, there was yet another settlement m 22.12.1982
between the Union of the seasonal employees and the Marketing Federa-
tion. One of the terms of the settlement was that the Bhuibhar Committee
should submit its report to the Government within one month of the date
of that settlement and that the Government should take decision on the
B
said report at the earliest. There was also a provision made for interim
increase in the monthly consolidated wages of some of the categories of

-, the seasonal employees. The said interim relief was to be adjustable while
implementing the recommendations of the Committee. It is obvious from
this settlement that it was necessitated because of the delay in the submis- C
sion of the report by the Committee.

9. The Bhuibhar Committee submitted its report on 1.12.1983. Some
of the recommendations and the Government's reaction on the same are
relevant for our purpose. They are mentioned below:-
D
(1) Since, if the demand of the seasonal employees for employment
- ......_. throughout the year was accepted the financial burden would fall on the
cultivators and would affect the Cotton Monopoly Procurement Scheme, it
was not proper to provide 12 months' employment to the seasonal
employees and burden the said scheme. The Government accepted this E
recommendation.

(2) There should be increase in the sanctioned strength of the
perennial employees viz., Clerks, Peons and Watchmen in different zones
and at different Sub-zonal offices. The Government accepted it.
F
(3) There should be an increase in the sanctioned strength of the
seasonal employees. However, since this aspect required an indepth study,
the matter should be entrusted to a management consultant. The Govern-
ment accepted this suggestion.

(4) The seasonal employees should be given pay-scale of Rs. 160-
G
10-210-15-285-EB-20-465. The Government accepted the said pay-scale.

(5) The part-time seasonal employees should be given the pay-scale
of Rs. 105-5-145-10-205-15-210. An annual increment for three years of
completed seasonal employment was also recommended. The Government H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A accepted the recommendation.

(6) The vacancies in Class III and IV cadres in all offices (including
the cotton and non-cotton department) should be filled in from the
seasonal employees. The Government accepted the recommendation.

B (7) In regions other than Wes tern Maharashtra, the seasonal
employees should be given employment for a minimum period of six
months, and in Western Maharashtra, annual plans should be made to
make it possible to furnish employment for a minimum period of six months
to them.
c
10. The Government accepted the recommendation in principle, but
also suggested to the Federation that they make necessary planning for
sending seasonal employees from Western Maharashtra to Vidarbha for a
minimum period t>f six months.
D
11. Pursuant to the said report, and the Government's reactions to
it, an agreement was entered into between ~he Marketing Federation and
the Union of the seasonal employees on 18.1.1984. In the preamble, it was
stated that the agreement was entered into pursuant to the recommenda-
tions of the Bhuibhar Committee as accepted by the Government and the
E agreement was to be effective from 1.11.1982. The agreement also stated
that the Government had suggested that the agreement should ensure that
for the next five years, Cotton Scheme shall not be burdened and it was
pursuant to the aforesaid directive of the State Government that the
Marketing Federation and the seasonal employees' Union had agreed to
F its terms. Incidentally it may be stated that it is the same Union which
signed the said agreement which is the contesting respondent before us.
The agreement then specifically stated that the Marketing Federation had
agreed to implement the decision of tlie Government in respect of the
recommendations of the Bhuibhar Committee except recommendation No.
33 which had suggested that the vacancies in class III and IV cadre in all
G the offices of the Federation including the cotton and non-cotton depart-
ments should be filled in from the seasonal employees. Instead the agree-
ment provided that it is only the vacancies in the cotton department which
will be filled in from among the seasonal employees. The agreement stated
that during the period of five years, the Union shall not raise any demand
H tending to impose additional financial burden on the Cotton Scheme.
MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. v. EMPLOYEESUNION[SAWANf,J.) 303

12. On 31.8.1984, the present appellant No. 1 viz., the Maharashtra A
State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Ltd. was con-
stituted for the first time as a society registered under the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 with the express object f.9f taking over from
the Marketing Federation as the chief agent of the State Government, the
Cotton Monopoly Procurement Scheme. The staff of the -Marketing B
Federation engaged in the Cotton Scheme was to be taken over by the
appellant-Federation. Accordingly, the entire staff of the Marketing
Federation including the seasonal staff engaged under the Scheme was
taken over by the appellant-Federation on the same terms and conditions.
As a result, the appellant-Federation on the relevant date had perennial
staff of about 2200 persons and seasonal staff of about 4,500 persons. C

13. On 27.9.1988, for the first time, certain complaints were filed by
the Union of the seasonal employees, Aurangabad, under the Maharashtra
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices
Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In the complaints, it was D
stated that since as per the Patankar Award, the seasonal employees who
had put in 240 days of service were not made permanent, the appellant-
Federation had committed an unfair labour practice within the meaning of
the said Act. The Industrial Court dismissed the said complaint holding
· that the Patankar Award did not apply to the seasonal employees. On
28.9.1989 some seasonal employees from Amravati zone made the very E
same complaint under the Act before the Industrial Court, Nagpur. The
same was also dismissed. ·

14. Ther:eafter on 20.4.1990, the respondent-Union filed the present
complaint under the Act before the Industrial Court, Nagpur which has F
given rise to the present proceedings. This complaint was heard by another
member constituting the Industrial Court. The grievance made in the
complaint was that those seasonal employees who had worked for 240 Clays
in 1982-83 and 1983-84 were not made permanent and inasmuch as the
Patankar Award had directed the Marketing Federation to .make per-
manent seasonal employees who had completed 240 days of service, there G
was an unfair labour practice under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV to the
Act. The relief claimed was to quash the termination of the services of the
said employees at the end of the season and to make the employees
permanent from the date they completed 240 days of continuous service in
1983-84 Cotton Season. The further relief claimed was that the practice of H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A continuing the employees under reference as seasonal or casual be
declared as unfair labour practice and the direction be issued to the
appellants to cease to indulge in it. The incidental relief claimed was that
the appellants should be directed to pay the arrears of wages and all seivice
benefits to the concerned employees treating· them as permanent from
1983-84 Cotton Season. The Industrial Court by its impugned order of
B 14.9.1990 (i) allowed the said complaint, (ii) declared that the appellants
had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labour practices as con-
templated by Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV to the Act, (iii) directed the
appellants to cease and desist from indulging in the said unfair labour
practices and (iv) directed them not to terminate the services of the
c concerned employees w.e.f. 30.4.1990, (v) directed the appellants to absorb
and make permanent the said employees in compliance with the provisions
of the Patankar Award and the agreement dated 18.1.1984 and also by
giving the benefit of the Government letter dated 18.1.1985 and to grant
arrears of wages by processing their cases in the light of the directions given
D in the said letter which was referred to by the High Court in its decision
in Shripati Pandurang Khade & Ors. v. Zonal Manager, M.S. Co-op. Market-
ing Federation Ltd. Ors., (1987) Mh. U 694.

15. The appellants challenged the said order by a writ petition in the
---
High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition holding that
E the Patankar Award had become final and since it had given the direction
to make permanent even the seasonal employees who had put in the more
than 240 days of service, the writ petition had no merit. The Letters Patent
Appeal filed before the Division Bench of the High Court was also dis-
missed on the same ground by the impugned decision dat-ed-2-7.3.1992. It
F is against the said decision that the present appeals have come before us.

16. Before we advert to the respective contentions of the parties, it
would be advantageous to clear some conceptions regarding the nature of
the operations involved in the Cotton Scheme, the category of the staff
employed and the character of the seasonal employment under it. Although
G some attempt was made before us on behalf of the respondent-Union to
show that the operation of procuring and processing of cotton is carried
on throughout the year, there is nothing on record to support the said
contention. On the other hand, the record shows that out of the three
operations under the Scheme, the procurement and processing of cotton
H lasts on an average only for six months from November to April in the
_MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. v. EMPLOYEES UNION [SAWANf, J.] 305

principal cotton regions, viz., Vidharbha, Marathwada and West Khandesh A
and rarely extends beyond that period depending upon the cotton crop. In
fact, if the crop is less, the said period even ends earlier. In Western
Maharashtra, where there is scant crop of cotton, the procurement and
processing season lasts only for about four months from August to Novem-
ber. Hence the staff needed for procurement and processing is only for
ahout six months on an average but never beyond 7 to 8 months in any
B
year. It is only the operation of marketing which goes on throughout the
year and for the marketing as well as for the maintenance of accounts the
staff is needed throughout the year. The seasonal staff is further classified
- \-
into permanent, temporary, casual and part-time. The permanent seasonal
employees have scales of wages different from those of the perennial staff. c
So also the part-time employees have scales of pay different from those of
the full-time seasonal employees. The permanent seasonal employees are
paid their full wages during the season, i.e., when they are in employment,
according to the scale of pay. They arc also paid their annual increments
in that scale. During the off-season, they are paid monthly retention D
allowance equivalent to 25 per cent of their monthly salary. In respect of
- -+-- the said employees, further a seniority list is maintained and this seniority
list is scrupulously adhered to while employing them. If there is any vacancy
in the perennial posts, the recruitment is first made from the seasonal
employees according to the said seniority fist. In addition, the following
facilities are given to them: E

Specified grades and annual increments in the said grades; (ii)
Bonus in accordance with the provisions of the Payment of Bonus
Act at the same rate at which it is paid to the perennial employees;
(iii) Leave with wages; (iv) Casual leave at the rate of one day's F
casual leave for every month; (v) Paid holidays or salary in lieu of
holidays; (vi) Gratuity in accordance with the provisions of the
Payment of Gratuity Act; (vii) Benefit of Provident Fund Scheme
and Family Pension Scheme; (viii) Festival advance for Diwali,
Ganapati festivals etc.; (ix) Trnvelling Allowance and Daily Al-
lowances as are paid to perennial employees; (x) Dearness Al- G
lowance; (xi) Benefit of Group Accident Insurance Scheme; (xii)
Model standing orders are made applicable mutatis mutandis to
give security of employment; and (xiii) Family Planning incentives;
(xiv) Fifteen days' salary at the end of every season towards
overtime work. H

•
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A The temporary and casual seasonal employees are engaged as and
when needed on account of occasional increase in work and they are paid
consolidated salary.

17. What is further necessary to note is that there is a difference
between seasonal employment and seasonal employees. The employments
B
which are only seasonal may require only seasonal employees and there are
no perennial employees on their staff. On the other hand, an employment
may have both perennial and seasonal work as in the present case, and
hence require both kinds of workmen. Further, seasonal employees may be
permanent or temporary. The permanent employees are employed from
c season to season successively and are entitled on that account for retention
allowance and all other benefits referred to above during the off-season
because of their permanency as seasonal employees which is different from
permanency as perennial employees. The temporary seasonal employees
are not obviously entitled to the said benefits as the permanent seasonal
D employees since the temporary employees are not engaged from season to
season but only when there is an increase in work. So is the case with the
casual employees. There are also part-time seasonal employees and they -+-
carry different scales of wages by the very nature of their employment as
pointed out above. The seasonal employees like the perennial employees
also belong to different categories and grades. As stated above, at the
E relevant time the perennial employees of all categories were 2200 whereas
the seasonal employees were 4500. We have to stress this aspect because
we find that there is a good deal of confusion by the Tribunal and the
Courts below on these aspects of the matter which has contributed to their
erroneous conclusions.
F
18. Coming now to the contentions of the parties, the appellants
urged before us that the present order of the Industrial Court as well as
the decisions of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the
High Court have granted relief to the seasonal employees on the basis that
G the Patankar Award had directed the then Marketing Federation to give
permanency also to the seasonal employees who had put in 240 days' work
in a year. This assumption is itself erroneous since the terms of reference,
the statement of claim of the workmen, the written statement filed by the
Marketing Federation and the award would themselves show that the said
dispute rdated to, and, therefore, the relief was given in respect of only
H the perennial employees. While not disputing the fact that there was no
I ,..l.._•

MARKETINGFEDERATIONLTD. v. EMPLOYEESUNION(SAWANT,J.) 307

~pecific reference to the seasonal employees in either the terms of refer- A
ence or the statement of claim of the workmen or in the award, the
respondent-Union relied upon paragraph 10 in the written statement filed
by the Marketing Federation in the said reference, to urge that since the
Marketing Federation had itself referred to the seasonal employees in the
said paragraph, it had understood the demand for permanency as being B
related to the seasonal employees as well. We have quoted earlier the said
paragraph in the written statement of the Federation. That paragraph has
to be read in the context of not only the preceding paragraph (which is
also quoted above) but also in the context of the statement of claim and
the demand made. The relevant demand No. 4 for permanency has also
been quoted by us above. Without mentioning whether it was in respect of C
perennial or seasonal employees, it proceeded to state that 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. Since it is not and cannot be
disputed that there is seasonal work under the Cotton .Scheme and some D
workmen have necessarily to be employed for such work, it is difficult to
hold that the Union had made the said demand also in respect of the
seasonal employees. There is further nothing in the statement of claim filed
on behalf of the Union in support of the said demand to suggest that the
Union had in contemplation the case of any seasonal employees. On the
other hand, in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the statement of claim which related E
to the said demand, the Union had stated as follows:

"12. It would be rather surprising for any authority to note that
such a gigantic organisation like Federation (employing about 3000
number of workmen) throughout the State of Maharashtra is F
having majority of the workmen as temporary workmen. The Union
further points out that there are about 400 workmen who have put
in more than 5 years service but still they have been termed as
"temporary" workmen by the Federation. The Union further points
out that the business of the Federation is stable and has been
continued progressively and, therefore, it is desirable that such of G
the workmen who have put in three months aggregate or who have
put in 78 days minimum service in aggregate in spite of any should
be confirmed as permanent workmen.

13. It is a matter of regret that there are many workmen who have H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A put in long number of years of service are being continued as
temporary workmen, and, therefore, in the interest of justice,
equity and fairplay the demand may be given due consideration by
the authorities concerned and more so by the Federation itself. It
is respectfully submitted that the work of the Federation has
increased considerably during last seven years and the new projects
B have been coming up every now and then which require a large
number of permanent staff and therefore, it is necessary to make
the workmen permanent as dema11ded by the Union. The Union
further points out that services of temporary workmen on the
ground of being a temporary can be terminated at any time in spite
c of the fact that such workmen has put in a number of years of
service, which is inequitable, unjust and improper and that under
the circumstances, the demand of the Union is just and proper."

19. This would show that the Union was concerned with the tem-
D porary perennial workmen and not with seasonal workmen. The Union
knew that even among the perennial workmen there were some permanent
and others temporary and they were espousing the cause of the said -+-·-
temporary workmen. That is also clear from the fact that the demand is
·raised in the co1:1text of the alleged requirement of the large number of
permanent staff. The Union was particular in pointing out that the tem-
E porary workmen could be terminated at any time. As regards the seasonal
employees, their services are terminated every year, after every season and
they are re-engaged according to the seniority list for the successive
seasons. Therefore, the statement made in the statement of claim could not
even remotely be connected with the seasonal employees. If at all the
F meaning of the said two paragraphs is stretched, it can at best be construed
to refer to the temporary seasonal employees and not to the permanent
seasonal employees. In that case, it would only mean that the Union wanted
the temporary seasonal employees to be made permanent seasonal
employees. But that is not how either the demand or the statement of claim
can be read, and we do not read them so. Now coming to paragraph 10 in
G the written .statement of the Marketing Federation, in paragraph 9, it
showed its willingness to make permanent those employees who had com-
pleted three years of continuous service. This showed that even the Federa-
tion had understood the demand as relating only to the perennial
employees a~d not to seasonal employees. In that paragraph the Federa-
H tion also pointed out that the Union's demand for making permanent the
MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. v. EMPLOYEESUl\i10N(SP.WANT,J.) 309

employees who had put in three months' continuous service was not A
justified since the said period was too short to judge the capacity and ability
of the employee. These statements in paragraph 9 make it clear that
knowing fully well that it had also seasonal employees who had to be
continued from season to season for seasonal work, the Federation could
not have made the statement in connection with the permanent seasonal B
employees. Paragraph 10 of the written statement has, therefore, to be read
in that context. In further support of its opposition to the Union's demand,
the Federation went on to point out that it required for carrying out its
activities workmen both on temporary basis and on seasonal basis depend-
ing upon the nature of the workload. It then went on to point out that no C
period should be laid down in respect of such purely temporary and
seasonal employees and the rule of permanency should apply only to
employees who are recruited against the permanent posts and that it should
not apply to purely temporary or casual employees or seasonal employees.
Read as a whole, these statements made in paragraph 10 will also show
that if at all the seasonal employees were in the contemplation of the D
Marketing federation, they were the temporary seasonal employees l\fid not
the permanent seasonal employees. By the very nature of their employ-
ment, the temporary seasonal employees can be made permanent only as
permanent seasonal employees and not as permanent perennial employees.
In any case, it is difficult to sustain the argument that the Fedr,ration was E
there referring to the permanency of the permanent seasonal employees.
What is further, the Patankar Award does not even refer to the seasonal
employees. It also does not make any distinct.ion between the two and give
reasons either to accept or reject the contentions of the parties. It merely
summarises the arguments of the parties and gives a direction which is F
quoted above. The operative portion reads "considering, therefore, the
arguments advanced on both sides, it appears that it would be proper to
direct that those employees who have put in 240 days of continuous service
be treated as permanent employees." The direction can be read either as
a direction to make the temporary perennial employees and temporary
I
,: seasonal employees as permanent perennial employees and permanent G
' seasonal employees respectively or as a direction relating only to the
temporary perennial employees. But in no case, it can be read as a
direction to make seasonal employees as permanent employees as in the
nature of things SL ~h a direction could not have been given. There are
other reasons why the Tribunal could not_have given such a direction and H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A . if such a direction was given, it would have been highly inequitous and
discriminatory to the perennial employees - whether temporary or per-
manent. On the undisputed fact, that the procurement and processing
operations under the Cotton Scheme do not last for more than 4 to 6
months and in any case not more than 8 months, to make the seasonal
B employees permanent and give them all the benefits of the perennial
employees would mean that they would get the salary and all other benefits
throughout the year as the perennial employees do, without putting in work
throughout the year as the latter have to do. On the admitted fact that there
is a need of seasonal employees and there is no work available to be given
to them for a part of the year, the Cotton Scheme has always to maintain
C a distinction between the perennial employees and seasonal employees and
has to provide them with different service conditions though some of the
service conditions may be common. It is the failure to understand the
nature of the operations and the nature of the employment required under
the Cotton Scheme which is responsible for the impugned decisions of the
D Industrial Court and the High Court.

20. Further, the fact that even the seasonal workmen and their Union
did not understand either the said demand adjudicated by Shri Patankar
or the award given by him as referring to the seasonal employees is clear
from the subsequent events to which we have already made a reference.
E We have pointed out that after the Patankar Award which was given on
31.8.1984, all the then seasonal employees continued as seasonal employees
throughout, and the Marketing Federation made only the temporary peren-
nial employees permanent perennial employees as per the direction of the
said Award. None of the seasonal employees was made permanent except
F when he was recruit~d in the vacancies occuring in the post of permanent
perennial employees. But that was not because of the Patankar Award. It
was as per the understanding between the parties. The Union never raised
any objection to the same. In fact, as pointed out earlier, there were three
settlements between the parties on 12.6.1980, 11.12.1981 and 22.12.1982
which not only did not speak a word about makiti:g any seasonal employee
G who had put in 240 days of work, permanent but spoke about all other
matters relating to them. The settlement of 11.12.1981 in fact spoke about
the setting up of the Committee for examining problems of the seasonal
employees. The problems referred to there would show that not only was
the system of seasonal employees to continue but the strength of such
H seasonal employees was to be. assessed zonewise. They were to be ensured
MARKETINGFEDERATIONLID. v. EMPLOYEESUNION[SAWANf,J.) 311

maximum period of employment during the season. In fact, one of the A
problems which was to be investigated was whether the technical breaks
which were given to employees who were employed for 9 to 12 months
were necessary. This meant that the Patankar Award had no bearing on
the seasonal employees. In fact, the recommendations made by the Bhuib-
har Committee as accepted by the State Government, showed that the B
seasonal employees were not on the agenda of the industrial dispute
adjudicated by Shri Patankar.

21. On the other hand, recommendation 11 made in the said report
categorically stated that the demand made by the seasonal employees
subsequent to the said Award (pursuant to which the committee itself was C
appointed) for employment throughout 12 months could not be accepted
since the financial burden would fall on the cultivators and consequently
would affect the Cotton Scheme itself. That recommendation was accepted
by the Government. So also the recommendation 24 stated that the increase
in the sanctioned strength of the seasonal employees at Zonal and Sub- D
zonal offices which was suggested to the Committee required indepth study
_.....__ of the matter. That recommendation was also accepted by the Government.
Recommendations 25 and 27 suggested new pay scales for the full-time and
part-time seasonal employees respectively. The repotl also suggested the
recruitment of seasonal employees in the vacancies of the perennial
.. employees. The agreement of 18.1.1984 between the Marketing Federation
and the respondent-Union which followed the said report, records the
E

relevant facts. Thus, apart from the agreement of 12.6.1980, agreement
dated 11.12.1981 under which the Committee was appointed and the
agreement of .18.1.1984 by which the recommendations of the Committee
were accepted, show that the problems of the seasonal employees were all F
along kept separate and were dealt with separately from the problems of
the perennial employees. Had the dispute with regard to the permanency
of the seasonal employees been referred for adjudication to the Industrial
Tribunal of Shri Patankar and had the said Award related to the seasonal
employees, there would have been no need to enter into the agreements of
12.6.1980, 11.12.81 and 22.12.82. There would also have been no need to G
appoint the special Con>-.Uttee to study the problems of the seasonal
employees including the problem of ~heir permanency, and there would
; have been no need for the agreement of 18.1.1984 which followed the
recommendations of the Committee. We are, therefore, more than satisfied
that there is no substance in the contention of the respondent-Union that H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORT'S [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A either the Industrial Tribunal of Shri Patankar was called upon to adjudi-
cate the dispute with regard to the permanency of the seasonal employees
or that the award made by the said Tribunal had directed the seasonal
employees who had put in 240 days of work to be made permanent:

22. As has been pointed out above,. in fact no such direction could
B have been given by the said Tribunal, in the circumstances of the case. The
question whether there was a need of the seasonal employees, and for what
period was essentially a matter of indepth investigation. To answer the said
question, it was necessary to collect facts from each of the Cotton Zones
since the seasons varied from zone to zone, and to assess the need for each
c category of workmen for each of the zones and for each of the processes
of procuring and processing of cotton. It was also necessary to assess the
required strength of each of the categorii::s of the seasonal workmen by
talcing into consideration the compliment of the perennial workmen. For
this purpose, it is necessary to raise a specific demand for abolition of the
D category of the seasonal employees. If such a demand is referred for
adjudication, the adjudicator would have to formulate specific questions,
give opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on each of the questions
and to give his specific findings on them. There cannot be a common
demand for permanency of perennial and seasonal employees, the nature
of their employment being different. As pointed out above, if the demand
E is for making temporary seasonal employees permanent seasonal
employees, it would have to be stated so clearly and the finding thereon
..
has to be in specific terms. On the Gther hand, if the seasonal employees
have to be made permanent meaning perennial, in the sense that they have
to be given work for all the 12 months, they would still be temporary
F perennial employees, and not necessarily permanent perennial employees.
That is why the demand of the seasonal employees, even before the
Bhuibhar Committee was to give employment to them for 12 months. The
demand was not for making them perennial employees. A demand merely
for permanency in their case in effect involves two demands, viz., (i) to
abolish the seasonal employment and to make it perennial and (ii) after
G making it perennial, to make the erstwhile seasonal employees permanent.
These are two different things and it is the omission to understand the
significance of the said difference, which has led to the present confusion.

23. Being faced with this problem, it was urged on behalf of the
H respondent-Union that firstly the Marketing Federation as per the decision
MARKETINGFEDERATIONLTD. v. EMPLOYEESUNION[SAWANT,J.] 313

of this Court in Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers' Marketing A
Federation Ltd. v. Shripati Pandurang Khade and Ors., (1989] Supp. 1 S.C.C.
226, had implemented the decision of the Patankar Award. Secondly, it was
urged that since the appointment letter given to the seasonal employees
shows that the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 were applicable to them and B
since one of the Model Standing Orders, viz., Order No. 4-B reads as
under.

"A temporary workman, who has put in 190 days uninterrupted
service in the aggregate in any establishment of a seasonal nature
or 240 days uninterrupted service in the aggregate in any other C
establishment during a period of preceding twelve calendar
months, shall be made permanent in that establishment by an order
in writing signed by the Manager or any other person authorised
in that behalf by the Manager, irrespective of whether or not his
name is on the muster roll of the establishment throughout the D
period of the said twelve months."

The seasonal employees were entitled to be made permanent after they
had put in 240 days' uninterrupted service. None of these arguments had
any merit. In Pandurang Khade's case the employees involved belonged to
Phaltan Zone in the Western Maharashtra where as stated earlier, the E
cotton season does not last for more than 4 months. They had made a
complaint before the Industrial Court on the ground of unfair labour
practice by the Marketing Federation referred to in items 5, 6 and 9 of
Schedule IV to the Act. The Industrial Court had dismissed the said
complaint holding that the grievance made was not covered by the said F
items but it came under Item 1 of the Schedule and there was no complaint
under the said item. The Industrial Court had also dismissed the complaint
as being barred by limitation. The High Court allowed the writ petition of
the respondent-Union against the said decision and that is how the matter
had reached this Court. It is evident from paragraphs 8, 11 and 12 of the
judgment of this Court that firstly the Court had proceeded on the footing G
that the expressions 'temporary employees' and 'seasonal employees' were
synonymous. Secondly, the Court had assumed that before the Industrial
Tribunal of Patankar, there was a demand for the permanency of seasonal I

employees and that the Patankar Award had granted permanency to the
seasonal employees. The Court had also proceeded on the footing that H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 1 S.C.R.

A since the letter ·Of the Government dated 9.11.1984 had directed the
appellant to finally absorb all staff employed with the Marketing Federa-
tion as on l.1.1985, the appellant was under an obligation to absorb the six
seasonal workmen concerned therein who had according to the Court,
become permanent pursuant to the Patankar Award. The Court for that
purpose also relied upon the letter dated 18.1.1985 to which a reference
B was made by the High Court in its .judgment under appeal in that case to
hold that those who had put in 240 days of service were-to be given all the
benefits mentioned in the said letter, whether the employees were peren-
nially or seasonally employed.

C 24. As has been pointed out earlier, this Court in Pandurang KJiade's
case had proceeded on the footing that the Patankar Award had directed
even the seasonal employees to be made permanent which presumption
was not borne out by the facts. As far as the letter of 9.11.1984 is con-
cerned, it only speaks of the employees who were with the Marketing
Federation to be absorbed on the "as is" basis by the appellant-Federation
D which means that the perennial and seasonal employees were to be taken
over as such employees only. The letter did not mean that those who were
seasonal employees should be taken over as perennial employees. As far
as letter of 18.1.1985 is concerned, it is addressed to one of the employees
concerned in the Pandurang KJiade's case. That letter was relied upon both
E by the High Court as well as this Court in that case to ·hold that Patankar
Award applied to the seasonal employees. We have pointed out that the
presumption was contrary to facts and, therefore, the decision was per
incuriam. That letter does not improve the matter. Hence, the reliance
placed on the two letters for contending that the seasonal employees who
had put in 240 days of service were to be made permanent or that the
F appellant=:-Federation had accepted them as perennial permanent
employees, is not well-merited.

25. The reliance placed by the respondent-Union, therefore, on tne
fact that the seasonal employees belonging to the Phaltan Zone were made
G permanent although they were jun!' r to the other seasonal employees to
contend that all the seasonal employees who had put in 240 days of service
should be made permanent is misconceived. The cases of the said
employees having been decided on incorrect facts will have, therefore, to
be treated as isolated instances and cannot be made the basis of the
contention that the seasonal employees who have put in 240 days' work
H should be made permanent perennial employees.
MARKETINGFEDERATIONL'ID. v. EMPLOYEESUNION[SAWANf,J.) 315

\
26. Coming now to the noxt contention, viz., that in the appointment A
-( letter of the seasonal employees it has been specifically mentioned that
their conditions will be governed by the Model Standing Orders and Model
Standing Order No. 4-B which is quoted above, requires that the employees
who have put in 240 or more days of service should be made permanent,
we are of the view that the contention has no substance. It must in the first
instance be remembered that the Model Standing Orders do not apply to B
seasonal employees. Secondly, the seasonal employees in the present case
are governed by their own service conditions, which as pointed out above,
have in material respects no relation to the service conditions of the
·r perennial employees who are governed by the said Model Standing Orders.
It is, therefore, incorrect to say that all the Model Standing Orders are C
applicable to the seasonal employees. By the appointment letters, the
Model Standing Orders have only been incorporated in the other service
conditions of the seasonal employees only to the extent that the specific
service conditions of the seasonal employees are silent on the aspects
covered by the Model Standing Orders and which orders would necessarily
apply to the seasonal employees. The Model Standing Orders, therefore, D
are applicable to the seasonal employees mutatis mutandis. The Model
Standing Order No. 4-B in particular will be inapplicable to the seasonal
employees because of the very nature of their employment and hence it
cannot be read into the service conditions of the seasonal employees.
Lastly, a reading of the said Model Standing Order No. 4-B would itself
make it clear that it is applicable to the perennial employees only. It speaks E
of temporary workmen in any establishment of a seasonal nature or in other
establishment during a period of preceding twelve months. Admittedly, the
appellant-Federation's establishment is not of a seasonal nature. It is only
some employees employed therein who are seasonal. Secondly, as far as
the employees in the other establishments spoken of there, are concerned, F
they can only be such employees who are employed for perennial work but
for some reason or the other, are not allowed to complete 240 days in such
perennial work. It is, therefore, clear that the said Model Standing Order
does not apply to seasonal employees. Hence this contention has also to
be rejected.
G
27. In the result, as allow the appeals and set aside the decisions of
the Industrial Court and of the High Court. In the facts and circumstances
of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

R.P. Appeals allowed.