Shripat Ramji Dahane vs Shankar Sahakari Ginning Pressing Factory and Another

D.D. Sinha, J.—Heard Shri P.B. Patil, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Shri V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1.

This Writ Petition is directed against the Award dated May 15, 1998, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Akola, in Reference Case No. 38 of 1994. The learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner was the seasonal employee and was working with the Respondent No. 1 Factory since 1981. The learned counsel further contended that the Petitioner has served with the Respondent No. 1 during the concerned season till February 21, 1993. The learned counsel further contended that the Respondent No. 1 terminated the services of the Petitioner w.e.f. February 21, 1993. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner approached the Labour Court, Akola, which, initially has passed an ex parte award in favour of the Petitioner. However, the said ex parte award came to be set aside by the Labour Court, upon an application of the Respondent and the final award dated May 15, 1998 was passed against the Petitioner, which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition.

Shri Patil, learned counsel contended that the defence taken by the employer that the Petitioner abandoned his services, is unfounded and the Labour Court ought not to have accepted the same. It is further contended that since the Petitioner was a seasonal employee and his services were engaged by the Respondent No. 1 in every season, he has a right to get employment in every season and the action of the Respondent No. 1 in terminating the services of the Petitioner is not just and proper. Similarly, the reasoning given by the Labour Court is also not sustainable by law.

Shri Wankhede, learned counsel supported the award passed by the Labour Court.

I have considered the contentions raised by the counsel of the respective parties and perused the impugned award passed. The undisputed fact is that the Petitioner was a seasonal employee and the services of the Petitioner were engaged by the Respondent No. 1 only during the concerned season. If that is so, the services of the Petitioner must come to an end when the season is over. The Petitioner, therefore, falls within the category of ''seasonal employee'' and the services of the Petitioner are therefore, purely ad hoc and temporary, which are required by the employer only during the season and not otherwise.

In that view of the matter, in my opinion, in such category of employees, no right is created either to the post or for the purposes of continuation of the services. In the instant case, the Labour Court accepted the defence put forth by the Respondent that the Petitioner himself has abandoned the services, which is just and proper. In the circumstances, no interference is called for. The petition stands dismissed as such.