BHOGPUR CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD.versusHARMESH KUMAR

                  BHOGPUR CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD.                                  A
                                       v.
                            HARMESH KUMAR

                            NOVEMBER l 0, 2006

               [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]                             B


      Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

      Section I 0(1)(c)-Reference-Jurisdiction of Labour Court-Scope and
ambit of-Held: Labour Court derives its jurisdiction from the terms of C
reference-On facts, question referred wcs whether termination of seasonal
worker was justified-Labour Court erred in going into question as to
whether the employer was bound to take the services of workman in all
subsequent seasons.

     Sections 25G, 2(oo)(bb)-Seasonal worker-Appointed on daily wage
                                                                                  D
basis-Termination of services-Held, does not amount to retrenchment

      Sections 25G, 25H-Burden to prove continuity of service under two
sections-Requirement of-Discussed

      Rule of 'last come first go'-Applicability of
                                                                                  E

      Appellant had been operating a sugar mill. It had been recruiting
workmen in the begitJning of season and retrenching them at the end of it.
Respondent was appointed as seasonal workman on daily wage basis. He raised
industrial dispute pursuant whereto State referred to the Labour Court. The       p
question as to whether termination of his services was justified. Labour Court,
opining that the workman has not been able to establish that he had worked
for 240 days, held that the appellant having not called respondent in the
subsequent crushing seasons and also having called his juniors, violated the
provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent
successfully filed Writ Petition before the High Court.                           G
      In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that termination of the
respondent's services did not come within the purview of the term
'retrenchment' as contained in Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes

                                     1021                                         H
    1022                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A Act.
           Allowing the appeal, the Court
          HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the appellant operates a seasonal
    factory and the respondent had not been in continuous service for 240 days
B   during twelve months preceding his termination. 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 derived its
    jurisdiction from the terms in the reference. It ought to have exercised its
    jurisdiction within the four corners thereof. The Labour Court was, therefore,
    not required to go into the question as to whether the appellant was bound to
C   take the services of the respondent in all subsequent seasons or not.
                                                                      [1024-D-GJ
          2.1. Where Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable,
    the workman is bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of240
    days during twelve months preceding the order of termination. However, in a
D   case where he invokes the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H thereof he
    may not have to establish the said fact. However, category-wise seniority is
    required to be maintained when different categories of workmen are appointed
    so as to apply the principle of 'last-come-first go'. A seniority list is al:;o
    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,
E   however, would have no application in a case where Section 2(oo)(bb) of the       '-
    Act is attracted. [1024-G, H; 1025-A-C)                                           '
         Central Bank ofIndia v. S. Satyam & Ors., [1996) 5 SCC 419; Samishta
    Dube v. City Board, Etawah & Anr., [1999] 3 SCC 14; Regional Manager,
    SB/ v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari, [2006) 1 SCC 530; Jaipur Development
F   Authority v. Ram Sahai & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 4626 of (2006) decided by
    Supreme Court on 31st October, (2006), relied on.

          2.2. 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,
G   not attract the definition of the term 'retrenchment'. (1025-F)

         Municipal Council, Samra/av. Sukhwinder Kaur, [2006) 6 SCC 516;
    Municipal Council, Samra/av. Raj Kumar, (2006] 3 SCC 81; Marinda Coop.
    Sugar Mills Ltd v. Ram Kishan and Ors., (1995] 5 SCC 653; Haryana State
H   Agricultural Marketing Board v. Subhash Chand and Anr., (2006] 2 SCC 794
          BHOGPUR CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. HARMESH KUMAR [S.B. SINHA, J.) I023

    and State ofRajasthan v. Sarjeet Singh & Anr., (2006) 10 SCALE 417, relied        A
    on.


.         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4771 of2006 .

         From the final Judgment and Order dated 12.4.2005 of the High Court
    of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.6086/2005.                       B
          Pradeep Gupta, K.K. Mohan and Suresh Bharti, Advs. for the Appellant.

          Ms. Shipra Ghose, for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                  c
          S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.

           Appellant is a cooperative society. It is registered under the Punjab
    Cooperative Societies Act, I 96 l. It operates a sugar mill. It is said to be a
    seasonal industry. At the beginning of the season, workmen are recruited and      D
    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, 194 7 (for short "the Act") pursuant whereto or in furtherance
    whereof the State of Punjab in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
    IO(l)(c) of th~ Act referred the following dispute to the Labour Court by a       E
    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?"
                                                                                      F
          The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur opining that the workman
    has nnt 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:
                                                                                      G
           "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     H
    1024                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A           their joining when workman was not called .... "

          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
B   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
c           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 liis 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."
D
         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.

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

         The LabourCou1t derived its jurisdiction from the terms in reference. It
    ought to have exercised its jurisdiction within the four comers thereof.
F
          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.
G
          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 Se~tion 25-F of the Act applies the workman is
    bound to prove that he had been in continuous service of 240 days during
H
          BHOGPUR CO-OP SUGAR MILLS LTD. v. HARMESH KUMAR (S.B. SINHA, J.J J025

    twelve months preceding the order of termination, in a case where he invokes     A
    the provisions of Sections 25-G and 25-H thereof he may not have to establish
    the said fact. [See Central Bank of India v. S. Satyam & Ors., [1996) 5 SCC


-   419, Samishta Dube v. City Board, Etowah & Anr., [ 1999) 3 SCC 14, Regional
    Manager, SB/ v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari [2006] I SCC 530 and Jaipur
    Development Authority v. Ram Sahai & Anr. of Civil Appeal No. 4626 of2006        B
    decided on 31st October, 2006)

           However, category-wise seniority is required to be maintained when
    different categories of workmen are appointed so as to apply the principle of
    'last-come-first go'. A seniority list is also required to be maintained so as
    to enable the employer to offer services to the retrenched employees             C
    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. The
    said provision reads, thus:

            "2. (oo) retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the
            service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as        D
          · a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not
            include

           (a)-(b)               * * *
           (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-    E
           renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the
           workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated
           under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein;"

          Termination c.f services of a workman as a result of non-renewal of the
    contract of employment on its expiry or termination or' such contract of         p
    appointment under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein would, thus,
    not attract the definition of the term 'retrenchment'. [See Municipal Council,
    Samra/a v. Sukhwinder Kaur, [2006] 6 SCC 516 and Municipal Council,
    Samra/av. Raj Kumar, [2006] 3 SCC 81]

          The issue is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Marinda       G
    Coop. Sugar A1ills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan and Ors., [ 1995) 5 SCC 653 wherein
    it was opined:

           "It would thus be clear that the respondents were not working
           throughout the season. They worked during crushing seasons only.
           The respondents were.taken into work for the season and consequent        H
    1026                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R.

A          to closure of the season, they ceased to work.

           The question is ·whether such a cessation would amount to
           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
B          of the opinion that the view taken by the Labour Court and the High
           Court is illegal. However, the appellant 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 places in which the respondents normally
           live and if they would report for duty, the appellant would engage
c          them in accord~nce with seniority and exigency of work."

         Yet again, recently in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board v.
    Subhash Chand and Anr., [2006] 2 SCC 794, this Court held:

           "his the contention of the appellant that the respondent was appointed
D          during the wheat season or the paddy season. It is also not in dispute
           that the appellant is a statutory body constituted under the Punjab
           and Haryana Agriculture Produce Marketing Board Act. In terms of
           the provisions of the said Act, indisputably, regulations are framed by
           the Board laying down the terms and conditions of services of the
E          employees working in the Market Committees. A bare perusal of the
           offer of appointment clearly goes to show that the appointments were
           made on contract basis. It was not a case where a workman was
           continuously appointed with artificial gap of l day only. Indisputably,
           the respoi;ident had been re-employed after termination of his services
           on contract basis after a consideration period(s)."
F
    [See also Municipal Council, Samra/av. Sukhwinder Kaur, [2006] 6 SCC 516
    ~nd State of Rajasthan v. Sarjeet Singh & Anr., (2006) 10 SCALE 417]

          For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be
    sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
G
    D.G.                                                           Appeal allowed.