R. M. LODHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS group of six appeals by special leave involving identical issues was heard together and is being disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) IN Civil Appeal No. 3002/2007, both the parties are represented by their counsel and, therefore, we deem it appropriate to take up the facts from this appeal.

( 3 ) THE appellants, U. P. State Sugar Corporation limited, (for short, "corporation"), is engaged in manufacture of white crystal sugar by vacuum process. The sugar Unit is a seasonal unit which functions for a period of about 5 months in a year depending upon the allocation of sugar cane to the concerned Unit by the cane Commissioner, U. P. , During the crushing season 1996-1997, the appellant engaged Niraj kumar, the respondent no. 1 (for short, "workman"), purely on temporary/daily wages basis. According to the Corporation, the workman was engaged as weighment Clerk as an additional hand in the mid of the crushing season 1996-97 i. e. from January 1, 1997; the workman worked upto April 15, 1997 and on and after that date, his engagement ceased.

( 4 ) THE workman raised an industrial dispute alleging that by not engaging him in the next crushing season viz. , 1997-98, although he presented himself, his services were illegally terminated. He set up the case that he had worked with the Corporation during the crushing season 1996-97 from January 1, 1997 for full second part and was, accordingly, entitled to be engaged in next crushing season and although he presented himself, he was not given any work and, thus, under the Standing orders his services are deemed to have been illegally terminated.

( 5 ) THE Corporation contested the claim of the workman and set up the case that during the crushing season, the work load in sugar Unit increases manifold which at times necessitates engagement of additional hands on daily wages to caterto the additional workload. During the crushing season 1996-97, sugarcane purchase centres were allotted by the Cane commissioner which created additional workload and for that additional hands were engaged on daily wages at various centres. The workman was one of such additional hands. He was engaged on January 1, 1997 and worked as such only upto April 15,1997 whereafter the additional workload for which he was engaged, came to an end and, therefore, his engagement automatically ceased w. e. f. April 15, 1997. The Corporation also stated that the duration of crushing season 1996-97 was from November 19, 1996 until may, 1997. The Corporation denied that there was any illegal termination of services of the workman.

( 6 ) BOTH the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in respect of their respective case. The Presiding Officer, Labour court, U. P. , Dehradun, after hearing the parties passed the award on April 17, 2000 holding that by not engaging the workman in the crushing season 1997-98 which was to start on November 1997,. the Corporation can be said to have terminated the services of the workman illegally. The Labour Court directed the Corporation to engage the workman in the next season and also awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to him.

( 7 ) THE Corporation challenged the award before the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital. The principal ground taken by the Corporation before the High Court was, as was the case before the Labour Court, that the workman was a temporary workman as classified underthe standing Orders and, therefore, the direction of the Labour Court was not justified. The workman defended the award before the High Court.

( 8 ) THE High Court held that there was no perversity in the finding recorded by the Labour court, that the workman was a seasonal workman. However, taking note of a decision of this Court in Morinda Cooperative Sugar mills Limited v. Ram Kishan [jt 1995 (6)SC 547], the High Court modified the award by directing the Corporation to engage the workman in every crushing season when the purchase centres are opened at mill or at any ot