Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a sugar factory manufacturing crystal sugar by vacuum pan process. This sugar factory was initially known as Diamond Sugar Company Limited, Pipraich, which came into existence in the year 1932. In 1974, this Company was taken over by the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. It is alleged by the workers that they were working as Engineer Coolies since 1980 and that they were working from the start of the season till the end of the season. The work taken from them by the employers was seasonal in nature and that they were working continuously day in and day out for the last many years. It was alleged that the workers were doing the work of a seasonal employee, but, the benefit of a seasonal employee or of a permanent employee was not being given to them. On the other hand, they were being shown as substitutes or temporary employees.
(2.) THE crushing season for the sugar year 1999 -2000 started from 3.12.1999 when the workers in question were present at the factory gate, but, were not given work. It was alleged that some directions dated 5.11.1999 was issued by the management stating therein that temporary or substitute employees would not be given work. The workers also filed a chart, which was duly signed by the General Manager, which indicated the period the workers worked from the year 1979 to 1998 -99. It was also alleged that pursuant to the order of termination they have remained unemployed and, on account of being overage, they are unable to get any employment. The 43 workers, whose services were terminated on 3.12.1999, raised an industrial dispute with regard to the validity and legality of the order of termination dated 3.12.1999. All the 43 cases were connected and Adjudication Case No. 30 of 2003 was made the leading case. Before the Labour Court, the employers contended that the 43 workers in question were not permanent or seasonal employees, but, were employed as substitutes or temporary during the crushing season, according to requirement of the work and for the period these workers had worked were paid the wages applicable to them. It was specifically contended that these workers had never worked for the entire season and that their services were never terminated. It was also contended that, if the need arose, work would be taken from them provided they apply for work.
(3.) IN rejoinder, the workers reiterated their stand as contained in the written statement and further fortified their contention that they were never employed as substitutes or temporary and that they started working from the start of the season and worked till the end of the crushing season.;