AWADESH SINGH Vs. KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought the relief of issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to assume his duties as a permanent seasonal weighment clerk/sheet writer in the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ghosi, District Mau (herein after referred as the Mills) and to pay him wages/ salary due since November 8, 1991 in the clerical grade IV.

(2.) It transpires from the record that the petitioner was engaged as sheet writer/weighment clerk in the crushing season 1988-89 and worked in that capacity at Purchase Centres of the Mill even during the following crushing seasons 1989-90 as well as 1990-91. He claims to have worked in that capacity during whole of the second halves of the aforesaid seasons. His case is that he is entitled to be treated as permanent seasonal employee of the Mills under the provisions of the Standing Orders, 1988 issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. His grievance is that when the Mills started operating with effect from November 8, 1991 i.e., to say in the crushing season 1991-92, he was given no intimation or information for resuming his duties as sheet writer/weighment which he was entitled to get under the provisions of the Standing Orders, 1988. The main defence to the petitioner's claim is, as stated in the counter affidavit, that the petitioner was not permanent seasonal employee. It is also averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not work for the whole of the crushing seasons 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91. The employment of the petitioner, it is alleged in the counter-affidavit, was of temporary and casual nature as per exigencies and demand. The plea as to non-maintainability of the writ petition has also be raised.

(3.) In my opinion the plea as to non-maintainability of the writ petition is not sustainable. The Mills, even if it is a society, is bound, in the matter of employment, by the Standing Orders, 1988 referred to above which, in my opinion are statutory in character and the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent Mills is not purely that of master and servant governed by contract but their relationship is governed by the statutory provisions. As such, in my opinion, it is too late in the day to say that the writ petition is not maintainable.