- (1.) This SLP has been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dated 28-7-1997 in WP (C) No. 2134 of 1998.
(2.) The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner (Kapus Ekadhikar Karmachari Sangh), for quashing the award passed on 27-9-1988, by the Industrial Court in Complaint No. 175 of 1987. The High Court dismissed the writ petition mainly relying upon the judgment in (Maharashtra State Co-op. Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Employees' Union)1, 1994(2) Bom.C.R. 585 : 1994 Supp. (3) S.C.C. 385. The material part of the order of this Court reads as follows: "2. The State Government under section 42 of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971, appointed the Maharashtra Co-operative Marketing Federation (hereinafter referred to as 'Marketing Federation'), a co-operative society, as the chief agent to implement the Cotton Monopoly Procurement Scheme (the 'Cotton Scheme'). The Marketing Federation was before that date engaged in the marketing of several commodities. From that date onwards till 31-8-1984, it continued to act as the chief agent of the State Government for procurement, processing and marketing of cotton as well. For this purpose it recruited and maintained a separate section with a separate staff. The staff consisted of those who were needed throughout the year and those who were needed only during the season. The cotton trade (which expression will include procurement, processing and manufacturing of cotton) in Maharashtra is mostly in Vidarbha, Marathwada and Khandesh region, and commences roughly in the first week of November and extends up to April of the next year. ... The Cotton Scheme introduced by the Government has three aspects - (i) procurement, (ii) processing, and (iii) marketing. The first two activities extend over four to six months in a year depending upon the extent of the availability of the crop. The third stage, viz., marketing and also the function of maintenance of accounts are spread over throughout the year. ... The seasonal employees engaged in the said two activities consist of ... Supervisors etc. who work at the collection centres and the processing centres. On an average, the seasonal employees are about twice the number of the perennial employees."
(3.) At the time when the SLP came up for admission, this Court passed an order on 19-1-1998 as follows: "It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in Maharashtra State Co-op. Cotton Growers' Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Employees' Union the definition of 'cotton season' which was contained in Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement, Processing and Marketing) Act, 1971 was not considered and therefore the decision required consideration so far as the season employees are concerned. Issue notice.";