M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) Sixty nine petitioners have filed this writ petition and seek the relief of mandamus to the effect that the opposite parties be directed to keep them in service and not to evict them from the quarters in pursuance of the order dated 27-.-1989. They seek quashing of the order dated 27-5-1989. The facts relevant for the decision of this writ petition, as emerge from the pleadings, are set out.
(2.) The petitioners stated that they had been working in the Ratna Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., Shahganj, district Jaunpur in the capacity of permanent employees since August, 1946. By a notification dated 23-4-1989, the Ratna Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Shahganj, district Jaunpur was acquired by the U. P. Rajya Chini Nigam Ltd., and its management was entrusted to the Administrator. The petitioners state that they were engaged for cleaning and repairing work of the mills which they continued till 10-5-1989 under the directions and supervision of the General Manager.. On 11-5-1989,77 employees of the mills were stopped at the rate and were not permitted to enter into the mills premises without any reason. The petitioners are included in the group of 77 employees, who were refused entry to the Mills. On enquiry the petitioners came to know that their birth records were not available in the office and it was presumed that they had completed 60 years of age, which is the age of superannuation under the Standing Orders governing the conditions of employment of workmen in the factories. The standing order on which reliance is placed is dated 3-10-1988 and detailed procedure is given in the standing orders with regard to the method of superannuation of a workman. Two months' notice is to be given to the workmen before their superannuation. The standing orders contemplate that a retiring workman shall be paid the amount of gratuity, as may be due to him on receipt of clearance slip from the workman. Clause 8 of the Standing Orders, on which the claim- of the petitioners is grounded, reads as under : "8. The management shall pay the amount of gratuity to a retiring workman as may be found due to him by the management on receipt of a clearance slip from the workman in respect of articles of stores, advances etc. and the workman shall simultaneously vacate his quarter and hand over its possession to the management. The retiring workman shall be deemed to be in service and shall be entitled to full wages and all range benefits as long as the employer does not tender the due amount of gratuity to him but receipt of payment of gratuity found due by the employer shall not prejudice the right of the workman to raise a dispute about it, if he considers the amount disputable even on vacation of the quarter and exit from the service. If a workman does not vacate his quarter and handover its possession to the management on the date of retirement despite tendering the amount of gratuity, he shall not be deemed to be in service after the date of retirement."
(3.) The standing order imposes a restriction on the right of management to evict a workman from the quarter till he continues to be a workman or his amount of gratuity etc. is paid to him. The workman is deemed to be in service and entitled to full wages and all fringe benefits as long as the employer does not tender his dues and gratuity to him. The petitioners Union is said to have made a representation to the Chief Minister protesting against the refusal of the management to allow them entry in the factory premises. No show cause notice was given to the petitioners nor was any reason given to them for the action of the respondents. A notice is said to have been pasted on 27-5-1989 calling upon the petitioners to vacate the their premises as they were treated retired employees of the factory. In view of Clause 8 of the Standing Orders the petitioners cannot be asked to vacate the premises or thrown out of the services unless the amount of gratuity is paid to them. The petitioners challenge the impugned order on some grounds, which include that they were not paid the retirement benefits and they were not given any notice before the proposed action is taken.;