Chatampur Sugar Company Ltd. vs Presiding Officer Labour Court ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 96 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31949 of 1998
 

 
Petitioner :- Chatampur Sugar Company Ltd.
 
Respondent :- Presiding Officer Labour Court And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh D. Khare,Alok Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.P. Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri S.S.Nigam, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. List has been revised but no one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 though the name of Sri S.P.Shukla, Advocate, has been shown from the side of respondent and he has also filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 16.12.1997 passed by the Labour Court-IV, Kanpur and the order dated 25.5.1998 passed on the review application.

4. The petitioner before this Court is a subsidiary company of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited. The Company was closed down in the year 1995. It had engaged respondent No.2 as a Seasonal employee during the period when the Company was engaged in the business of crushing of sugarcane.

5. The dispute relates to crushing season 1992-92. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 was engaged by the petitioner-Company in the year 1990. He continued as seasonal employee of the company till 1992 and thereafter no work was taken by the Company. The matter was referred to the Labour Court on the application moved by respondent No.2 for adjudication. The Labour Court vide award dated 16.12.1997 directed for reinstatement of respondent No.2 alongwith 50% backwages. The petitoner -Company filed a review application for reviewing the award. The said review application was dismissed vide order dated 25.05.1998.

6. Sri S.S.Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that out of eight seasonal employees, whose services come to an end in 1992, the labour Court only gave award in favour of respondent No.2 in the year 1997 for reinstatement with backwages. According to him, once the Company had already closed in the year 1995, no occasion arose for reinstating respondent No.2. He has relied upon decisions of Apex Court in Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Ram Kishan and others (1995) 5 SCC 653 and Anil Bapurao Kanase vs. Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Anr. JT 1997(5) SC 597.

7. According to senior counsel, it is neither retrenchment nor termination as respondent No.2 was only a seasonal employee and his work had ceased on coming to an end of crushing season.

8. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record as well as judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court.

9. From perusal of the judgment rendered by Apex Court in case of Anil Bapurao Kanase (supra), it is clear that retrenchment has been defined under Section 2(oo)(bb) of Industrial Disputes Act. The cessation of work of respondent No.2 by the petitioner neither amounts to retrenchment nor termination as after the end of crushing season, services of respondent No.2 was not taken in the next crushing season and no case for interference by the Labour Court arose.

10. In view of the said fact, as the work taken by the petitioner- Company was only seasonal and on coming to an end of crushing season, the work came to an end, respondent no.2 is not entitled for the relief as granted by the Labour Court.

11. In view of the above, the award dated 16.12.1997 passed by Labour Court is hereby set aside.

12. The writ petition stands allowed.

Order Date :- 2.1.2023

Kushal