JUDGMENT :

1. These are four writ petitions arising out of awards passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Gorakhpur dated 11.08.1999 and 13.08.1999 in Adjudication Case nos.103 of 1987 & 118 of 1987 and Misc. Case nos.404 of 1987, 90 of 1991 & 403 of 1987. The Labour Court has entered awards in the four industrial disputes between the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Limited, Unit Munderwa, District Basti (since re-named as U.P. Sugar and Cane Development Corporation, Unit Munderwa, Basti) and its various workmen who brought these industrial disputes, accepting the workmen's claims. These various workmen are the respondents to the writ petitions, whereas the U.P. Sugar and Cane Development Corporation, Unit Munderwa, Basti are the petitioners. The U.P. Sugar and Cane Development Corporation, Unit Munderwa, Basti is hereinafter referred to as the Employers whereas the private respondents in each of the writ petitions are hereinafter referred to as the workmen (except for singular reference where the name of the particular workman is mentioned).

2. All the four petitions involve similar questions of fact and law. As such, all the petitions were connected and heard together with Writ – C No.4975 of 2001, being treated to be the leading case. Nevertheless, in order to indicate precise facts that are individual to the different writ petitions, the cause of action and course of proceedings in each involved, those facts and the course of proceedings in the four writ petitions would be set out separately in a brief statement about it.

3. Writ – C No.4975 of 2001 has been preferred by the Employer assailing an award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Gorakhpur passed in Adjudication Case no.103 of 1987 between the Employer and the registered Union of their workmen known as Sugar Mill Munderwa Mazdoor Panchayat, Munderwa Bazar, Lalganj Road, Munderwa, Basti (for short the Union), representing the interest of the workmen numbering fifteen, with particulars detailed in the Annexure to the order of reference.

4. The State Government vide Government Order no.5170-75 ¼JŒvkŒ½@36&Je¼1½ lhŒchŒ 68@86 cLrh , dated 11.02.1987, made the following reference under Section 2-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act) to the adjudication of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Gorakhpur:

D;k lsok;kstdks }kjk lyXu lwph esa vafdr 15 deZpkfj;ksa dh ekSleh Jfed ?kksf"kr fd;k tkuk pkfg,\ ;fn gka] rks fdl frfFk ls rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr\

5. The Labour Court proceeded to hear and determine the aforesaid Adjudication Case vide judgment and award dated 11.08.1999, whereby it held that the fifteen workmen whose names are appended to the order of reference are declared seasonal, and that they would be entitled to all benefits of seasonal engagement with effect from the year 1985-86. The Employers were ordered to pay in costs a sum of Rs.100/-.

6. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed.

7. Pending the aforesaid Adjudication Case, the Employers terminated the services of the workmen by an oral order with effect from 10.03.1987 without service of any notice or pay in lieu of the period of notice, or payment of retrenchment compensation. This led fourteen of the fifteen workmen, for whose benefit Adjudication Case no.103 of 1987 had been brought by the Union to file Misc. Case no.404 of 1987, under Section 6-F of the Act, on basis that pending adjudication of the Industrial Dispute, termination of their service was one in violation of Section 6-E. The workmen through the aforesaid misc. case sought reinstatement in service with continuity and back-wages, besides consequential benefits. A similar application giving rise to Misc. Case no.90 of 1991 was filed by the fifteenth workman, Ram Lal, also under Section 6-F of the Act.

8. Both the misc. cases were heard together and decided by the Labour Court, also vide a judgment and award dated 11.08.1999, whereby it was held that the act of the Employers in terminating the se