Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

ANIL BAPURAO KANASE versus KRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. AND ANR.

Decided
7 May 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 259 · 1997 INSC 494
Also cited as
  • (1997) 10 SCC 599 (7 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1997 SC 2698 (2 citing judgments)
  • JT 1997 (5) SC 597 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 2 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 259, margin F

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

pp. 259–260, margin G

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 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 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 Act. Since the present work is seasonal business, the principles of the Act have no application. However, this Court has directed that the respondentmanagement 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 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.

p. 260, margin A

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.

p. 260, margin E