Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Company which is a purchaser of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited Unit/Sugar Factory situated at Rohana Kalan, Muzaffar Nagar. The U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited had several sugar factories including the Unit situated at Rohana Kalan. It was declared a Sick Company by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies Act in 1984.

2. The petitioner, Indian Potash Limited, took over the Sugar Unit in a slump sale agreement on 7.12.2010. In the sale-deed, under Clause - 2.6, the contingent liability and legal cases pending in respect of the Unit were also transferred by the seller to the purchaser, and Indian Potash Limited therefore became liable in terms of the Award dated 26.2.2010 passed by the Respondent No. 1 in Adjudication Case No. 37 of 2006. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court challenging the Award on various grounds.

3. The case set up in the writ petition is to the effect that the Respondent No. 2 was engaged by Sugar Mill on a purely temporary ad hoc basis as a substitute Chowkidar for a short time only during the seasonal functioning of the Mill. The Respondent No. 2 never worked continuously for a whole year. He was not a regular employee of the Establishment. Therefore, his case of alleged illegal termination should not have been referred under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the State Government to the Respondent No. 1 for adjudication. The Reference under Section 4-K dated 23.1.2006 was “whether the action of the Employer in terminating the service of Shri Jay Prakash, son of Ram Chandra, Security Guard, during the season of 1999 - 2000 was proper? If not, to what relief he was entitled?”

4. In the claim set by the Respondent No. 2 it had been alleged by him that he had been working for the past several years as Security Guard in the Sugar Mill and the work of Security Guard was one of the permanent nature. The Respondent No. 2, however, was orally terminated at the start of crushing season 1999-2000 without following the provisions of Section 6-N. It was also alleged by the workman that the work of Security Guard being that of permanent nature it was being taken by the Sugar Mill from other workmen who were junior to the Respondent No. 2 and thus, there was a violation of Section 6-P and 6-Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act also.

5. The Employer filed its written statement on 18.7.2006 and it was stated that the engagement of the Respondent No. 2 was not on any permanent post according to the procedure prescribed for appointment of the regular employees. The engagement of Respondent No. 2 being purely ad hoc and temporary, was subject to work being available. As no work was available for him in crushing season 1999-2000, his services were terminated. The Respondent No. 2 had not completed 240 days in the preceding twelve calendar months.

6. The workman disputed such contention of the Employer and filed his replication. Oral statements of the Respondent No. 2 as well as Employer’s witnesses were recorded by the Respondent No. 1 and documentary evidence filed by either side to substantiate their claim.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that services of the Respondent No. 2 were wrongly held by the Respondent No. 1 to have been illegally and arbitrarily terminated and likewise direction issued for his reinstatement with full back wages was vitiated. It has been contended that the sugar factories by their very nature of work of manufacture of sugar are run only when raw material i.e. sugarcane is available and crushing season starts from 1st of November each year and ends on 1st of April the following year. A Sugar Factory works for 180 days in a season. Therefore, the employees engaged in such Sugar Factory cannot be said to have worked for 240 days and cannot be given the protection under Section 6-N. It has also been contended that