IMPORTANT POINT
A worker claiming seasonal employment must provide evidence of continuous engagement in the previous crushing season to be entitled to reinstatement.

JUDGMENT :

(Piyush Agrawal, J.) :

Heard Mr. Diptiman Singh for the petitioner and Mr. Shyam Narain for respondent No. 3.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for assailing the award dated 13.6.2005 passed by respondent No. 3 by which the petitioner was directed to reinstate respondent No. 3 in service for the next crushing season.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act situated at Deoband Distt. Saharanpur and involved in the business of manufacture and sale of crystal sugar through vacuum pan process. It is stated that service condition of the employees are governed by the certified standing order issued under Section 3 of the Act for Vacuum Pan Industries known as Standing Orders Governing the Conditions of the Employment and Workman in Sugar Industry of U.P. and under the said standing orders the industries are engaging the workmen as classified in Clause B of the standing orders. The nature of the industry of the petitioner is seasonal and work normally from November to April in each season thus engagement of employees in the factory is stated to be temporary, seasonal and permanent in nature in view of different nature of jobs of the industry. Respondent No. 3 claims to be a seasonal clerk in the establishment of petitioner and as his service were terminated, he filed reference under Section 4 K of Industrial Disputes Act in which, the impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to take work from respondent No. 3 in the next crushing season and cost was also awarded. Hence the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that nature of the work in the factory of the petitioner is seasonal in nature and the factory usually runs from November to April each season. He submitted that employees are engaged only after adopting due procedure and issuing proper appointment letters for which the petitioner is also maintaining due records. He further submitted that since the petitioner is engaged in manufacture and sale of sugar through vacuum pan process thus the services of the employees are governed by the certified standing order issued under Section 3 of the Act for Vacuum Pan Industries known as Standing Orders Governing the Conditions of the Employment and Workman in Sugar Industry in U.P. as such no employment can be made by the petitioner in contravention of the standing order issued by the State Government.

5. He submitted that respondent No. 3 has wrongly claimed to be an employee of the petitioner as Seasonal Clerk, however respondent No. 3 has worked only on daily wages as and when his services were required. He further submitted that seasonal worker is a worker, who is engaged only for crushing season and not continuously worked and if the workmen is retained, he shall be liable to be called for duty in the next crushing season. He submitted that the petitioner and respondent No. 3 has no relation of master and servant but without considering the material on record the impugned award has been passed. He further submitted that prima facie burden is upon the workmen to adduce the evidence with regard to his claim for which respondent No. 3 has failed to do so.

6. He further submitted that respondent No. 3 can claim for reinstatement of service in succeeding crushing season as a seasonal workmen only after showing material that he worked in the previous full crushing season or in the whole season of last preceding year. Merely because the workmen had worked during the part of previous crushing season does not entitle him for re-employment in the next crushing season. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Sowaran Singh, 2005(8) SCC 481, U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Now M/s. Dowiala Sugar Company Ltd. Doiwala v. Niraj Kumar and others, 2009 (14) SCC 712, Managing Director Chalthan Vibh