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

MORINDA CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. versus RAM KISHAN AND ORS. ETC.

Decided
25 August 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 85 · 1995 INSC 500
Also cited as
  • (1995) 5 SCC 653 (22 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 5 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. 86, margin A

We have heard the counsel on both sides: The Labour Court the High Court in the impugned judgment dated July 29, 1994 made in CWP Nos. 10033-35 of 1994 concluded that since the respondents had worked for more than 240 days in a year, they were retrenched workmen within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of Industries Dispute Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') Consequently, requirements of Section 2SF of the Act need to be satisfied but it was not done. So, held that the retrenchment is void and consequently reinstatement of 'the respondents was directed. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

p. 86, margin B

When we directed the appellants to furnish the crushing seasons in which the factory worked, they filed additional affidavit and for the years . 1987-88 to 1993-94, crushing seasons were given as follows :

p. 86, margin C

Crushing Year Commenced on Closed on 1987-88 7.11.1987 18.4.1988 1988-89 .28.11.1988 17.4.1989 1989-90 19.11.1989 30.4.1990 1990-91 25.10.1990 7.3.1991 1991-92 30.10.1991 17.4.1992 1992-93 28.10.1992 16.4.1993

p. 86, margin D

1993-94 2.11.1993 10.3.1994

p. 86, margin E

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 to closure of the season, they ceased to work.

p. 86, margin F

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 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 them in accordance with seniority and exigency of work.

pp. 86–87, margin F

The appeals are accordingly allowed but, m the circumstances, without. costs. T.N.A. Appeals allowed.

p. 87, margin A