SPECIAL OFFICER AND JOINT REGISTRAR OFCO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES VANIVILAS SUGAR FACTORY HIRIYUR Vs. WORKMEN OF VANIVILAS CO OPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORY HIRIYUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these four appeals are directed against judgment dated january 10th, 1992, delivered by the learned single judge in writ petition nos. 12586 of 1985 and 14335 of 1987. As the issues raised in these four appeals are identical, it is convenient to dispose of all the appeals by this judgment. The facts, which gave rise to the filing of these appeals, are as follows: vanivilas co-operative sugar factory is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka co-operative societies ACT and is engaged in the manufacture of sugar, running a distillery and other incidental activities. The factory was managed by the board of directors as contemplated under the ACT and the rules and the state government held majority of shares of the society. The government of Karnataka and the registrar of co-operative societies exercise the control over the management and affairs of the society. The factory had employed more than 600 workmen and out of them, 338 were permanent, while 312 were seasonal. The seasonal workmen were engaged from time to time. The factory commenced the business in the year 1972.

(2.) on april 2nd, 1985, the factory published lay-off notice informing the workmen that the workmen will be laid off with effect from april 3rd, 1985. The lay-off notice recites that the factory is running in losses and being a seasonal industry, it is not possible to give work to the employees. The workmen filed petition under Article 226 of the constitution being writ petition No. 12586 of 1985 before the learned single judge of this court challenging the action of the management on the ground that it is not permissible for the management to unilaterally determine that the factory is a seasonal industry and consequently, Section 25-a of chapter v-a of the industrial disputes Act, 1947 ('the act'), is attracted and the workmen will not be entitled to compensation for lay-off. The learned single judge admitted the petition and issued an interim Order after hearing the management on october 28th, 1985. The interim Order reads as under:

(3.) the government, thereafter, issued notices to the management and the workmen to file statements in support of their respective claims. The management filed statement on august 4th, 1986, inter alia, claiming that the sugar industry is a seasonal industry and the factory is of a seasonal character. The management claimed that only a small portion of the employees are permanent and the majority are seasonal or temporary. The management further claimed that the harvesting of the sugarcane and the crushing commence from october and continue upto february of each year. In paragraph 19 of the statement, it was claimed that crushing had taken place on 184 days in the year 1978-79 and 32 days in the year 1983-84. It was then claimed that for optimum utilisation, the factory is required to work a minimum of 182 days in a year and also requires 2.94 lakhs metric tonnes of sugarcane. The management claimed that in the entire decade of its existence, the factory was never able to work for 182 days and was unable to crush 2.25 lakhs metric tonnes of sugarcane. In paragraph 20, it was claimed that the factory is engaged in production by using skilled and unskilled labour only in a few months in a year and after the crushing season is over, skeleton staff is maintained for the purpose of maintenance of machinery and sale of sugar produced. The workmen filed statement of objections and the assertion of the management that the factory is a seasonal industry was denied. The workmen claimed that the assertion of the management that the factory had suffered losses for over several years is totally incorrect and the correct position about the accounts is not coming forth. The workmen also pointed out that crushing of the sugarcane is only one part of the business carried on by the factory and the management is running a distillery and purchasing of store materials. The workmen claimed that the activities of the industry consist of production and maintenance, marketing, accounting and extension work for sugarcane cultivation etc. The workmen claimed that the management is claiming that the factory is a seasonal industry with a view to sustain the notice of lay-off and deny lay-off compensation to the workmen. It was also claimed that the lay-off is not genuine and bona fide and is merely a camouflage for closing of the industry. What happened thereafter at the hearing before the secretary makes sad reading. The file produced by the state government clearly reflects that the secretary, who had taken the decision on behalf of the government, had not applied his mind, but was solely guided by the decision taken by the cabinet. Indeed, the noting of the minister and which was also noticed by the learned single judge, clearly indicates that the decision to declare the factory as a seasonal industry was already taken by the cabinet and the secretary merely endorsed the same by passing Order dated november 7th, 1986. The Order recites that the factory entirely depends on growing of sugarcane by the farmers and who are dependent on rain. Sugarcane is the principal raw material and being an agricultural commodity, is available during certain seasons. The Order then recites that the recorded days of crushing by the factory ranges from 43 days to 230 days only and in no years, the number of days range between 140 and 160 days. These variations, according to the government Order, prove that the industry is seasonal. The validity of the Order passed by the government was challenged by the workmen by filing writ petition No. 14335 of 1987 under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution before the learned single judge. There is one circumstance which is required to be noted, and that is as soon as the government declared the factory as a seasonal industry, the management issued an Order on november 11, 1986, declaring that the workmen will not be paid any lay-off compensation. This Order was passed inspite of the interim Order passed by this court directing payment of 50 per cent of the wages. The management did not bother about the existence of the interim Order and refused to carry it out, possibly because the government had given a declaration. The action of the management was totally illegal and amounts to committing contempt by breach of the interim order.