Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—Consequent upon a reference made to it, under Section 4(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, labour Court has found that non-engagement of respondent-workman at the start of crushing season 1980-81 w.e.f. 1.12.1980 was illegal and unjustified, and as such, workman has been held entitled to reinstatement alongwith entire back wages, and reference has been answered accordingly. Thus aggrieved with the award dated 27.2.1985, in adjudication case No. 15 of 1982, petitioner-employer has filed present writ petition.

2. Petitioner-employer M/s. Pratappur Sugar Pvt. Ltd. is a company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, which is running a sugar mill at Pratappur, District Deoria. During pendency of this writ petition, name of petitioner company has been changed to Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Mill Industries Ltd., Sugar Unit Pratappur, Deoria, and an amendment in the array of parties has also been allowed.

3. For running of the sugar mill, petitioner-employers engages workman. Service conditions of workmen thus engaged are governed by standing orders issued under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Respondent-workman herein alleged that he had been engaged as a seasonal kamdar in the petitioner’s establishment during cane crushing season 1969-70 and he worked continuously till 1979-80. In the written statement workman alleged that number of other employees similar to respondent-workman have already been reinstated pursuant to an award in adjudication case No. 46 of 1971, and as such, he is also liable to be reinstated. He further stated that since crushing season 1978-79, he was engaged as checker and worked as such till the end of season 1979-80, at the check post, and that his services were always satisfactory. According to respondent-workman, as he had worked for the entire cane crushing season 1979-80, and as such, he was entitled to be called at the start of fresh crushing season 1980-81 on the same post, but this was not done. According to respondent-workman, cane crushing season 1980-81 commenced w.e.f. 1.12.1980 and as he was was allowed to resume work, as such, non-calling of workman at the start of fresh season 1980-81 w.e.f. 1.12.1980 amounted to an illegal termination and he was entitled to be reinstated alongwith continuity of service and seniority etc. Dispute was, consequently, referred under Section 4(k) of the Act on the question as to whether termination of workman w.e.f. 1.12.1980 was legal or not?

4. On behalf of petitioner-employer a preliminary objection was raised with regard to maintainability of reference on the ground that alleged workman was not an employee of the company, and as such, no industrial dispute had come into existence and the reference itself was bad. Written statement and rejoinder statement were exchanged. Oral and documentary evidence were also led by the parties and ultimately, labour Court vide its award, under challenge, has allowed the claim of respondent workman, by granting him relief of reinstatement alongwith back wages, on the ground that refusal of employer to engage workman at the start of fresh crushing season 1980-81 was bad in law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-employer submits that labour Court has in fact, by the composite award in question, decided similar claim of three workmen, and on the same basis and similar evidence, claim of other two workers has been rejected, whereas different criteria has been adopted for the respondent-workman herein. Submission is that all three workers had claimed that documents, which were basis of their claim and were being filed by them, had been found lying in the canteen situated beyond the factory premises, and in respect of two other reference cases, labour Court disbelieved the claim of those workers of having found such documents in the canteen, but in respect of present workman, documents produced with similar story has been relied upon, and therefore, the lab