Managing Director, Haryana Seeds Development Corpn. Ltd Vs. The Presiding
Officer & ANR  INSC 555 (7 July 1997)
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA.
APPEAL NO 4610 OF 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.9408 of 1997) O R D E R Leave
appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court, made on 23.8.1996 in CWP No. 12867/96 and 12866/96.
admitted position is that the Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. has
been carrying on the business of distribution of the certified varieties of the
crop seeds to the farmers during Rabi and Kharif sowing seasons. As a
consequence, a number of employees including the salesman like the respondents
came to be appointed. It is also on record that due to heavy flood etc., a
number of units including the seeds sales counter were closed. As a
consequence, the services of the employees have been dispensed with. The
respondent have sought a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, the "Act"]. The Labour Court held that the dispensation of the
services of the respondents amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of
Section 25-F of the Act.
result without giving one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof, the retrenchment
is bad in law. Accordingly, it passed the award which was affirmed by the High
appeals by special leave.
25-FFF of the Act regulates the closure of the industry which envisages as under
:- "25-FFF. Compensation to workman is case of closing down of undertaking
(1) where an undertaking is closed down for any reason whatsoever, every
workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year in that
undertaking immediately before such closure shall, subject to the provisions of
sub-section (2), be entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the
provisions of Section 25-F, as if the workman had been retrenched;
that where the undertaking is closed down on account of unavoidable
circumstances beyond the control of the employer the compensation to be paid to
the workman under clause (b) of Section 25-F shall not exceed his average pay
for three months." As a consequence of the closure of the industry,
Section 25-F of the Act is not attracted and the rigour imposed thereunder
stands excluded. That was the view taken by this Court. In other cases, that
was also followed by another learned Single Judge of the High Court. In that
view of the matter, the learned Single has committed grievous error of law in not
admitting the writ petition.
are accordingly allowed. The order of the Labour Court stands set aside. No costs.
Shri K.B. Rohtagi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in paragraph 5
of the counter-affidavit has stated that all other junior person whose services
were dispensed with along with the respondents came to be appointed
subsequently. If that be so, it would be open to the respondents to make
representations to the Corporation and the Corporation would consider their
representations. If any of the other junior persons were appointed, necessarily
the respondents also are entitled for appointment afresh.