JUDGMENT :

1. The pith and substance of the controversy, that has given rise to this Writ Petition, centers around two questions, to wit, (1) Whether in a reference made to the Labour Court regarding the validity of termination of services of the respondent-workman, could the Labour Court pronounce upon his status as a temporary or seasonal workman, in the absence of a specific reference to that effect?, (2) Whether the respondent-workman is seasonal or temporary within the meaning of Clause B. 1(2) or (3) of the Standing Orders Covering the Condition of Employment of Workmen in Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories in U.P.?

2. The facts giving rise to this Writ Petition are that the petitioners are a sugar mill, owned by a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, known as M/s. Gangeshwar Limited, Deoband, Saharanpur. The said company has its registered office at Deoband, District Saharanpur. It is the petitioner's case that the company has been rechristened as ‘Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited, Deoband, Saharanpur’. The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of crystal sugar through the vacuum pan process. It is the petitioner's case that the nature of the industry is seasonal. Business commences in the month of November and ends in April, invariably. Looking to the nature of the petitioner's business, engagement of employees in the petitioner's sugar mill is of varied terms and tenure. Some workmen are retained as temporary hands, others as seasonal ones, and some on a permanent basis. This variation of the terms and tenure of employment depends on the nature of the job that a particular workman discharges in the sugar factory. It is the petitioner's case that they are a seasonal industry as already said, and that conditions of services of their workman are governed by ‘Standing Orders Covering the Condition of Employment of Workmen in Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories in U.P.’ (for short, the Standing Orders) issued under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). Under the Standing Orders, workmen may be employed on various kinds of tenure, that are spelt out in Clause B-1 (1) to (6). These are:

“B. Classification of Workmen–

1. Workmen shall be classed as–

(1) Permanent,

(2) Seasonal,

(3)Temporary,

(4) Probationers,

(5) Apprentices, and

(6) Substitutes.”

3. It is the petitioner's further case that varied nature of work assigned to the above referred categories of workmen, is done as provided in the Standing Orders. It is stated by the petitioner for a fact that the raw material, on which the petitioner's industry runs, is sugarcane, and, therefore, the business of a sugar mill is entirely dependent on sugarcane production and its availability. The petitioner has also pleaded that availability of sugarcane fluctuates during different years, and in proportion to that, the requirement of hands to run the petitioner's sugar mill. It has been averred categorically in paragraph 9 of the Writ Petition that during years that there is excess production of sugarcane, the sugar mill per necessity requires a stronger work force in order to cope with increased business. A fortiori in years during which the production of sugarcane goes down, or the supply is otherwise short, the requirement of services of workmen also dwindles.

4. The cause of action leading to this petition appears to have arisen with Punjab Singh son of Dharmpal Singh, respondent no.3 to this petition, alleging that he was retained by the petitioners as a Cane Weighment Clerk during the entire crushing seasons 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98. He regularly discharged his duties as such, at the various sugarcane procurement centres during all these seasons. It was claimed by the third respondent that during the crushing season 1998-99 also, he was retained on the post of a Cane Weighment Clerk, but on 06.01.1999 his services were dispensed with without prior notice. In short, he asserted his status to be a seasonal employee wit