Sapru, J. - (1.) These are two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution and the, applicants have claimed various reliefs which are mentioned in the applications. In writ No. 119 of 1952 the applicant is Firm Dewan Sugar Mills and in writ No. 120 of 1952 the applicant is the Dewan Sugar & General Mills Ltd. The lasti opposite party in writ no. 119 is the Company, whereas in writ No. 120 the last opposite-party is the Firm. The opposite-parties 6 to 20 in both the writs are the employees of the Mills which was managed until 30-6-1951 by the Firms and thereafter by the Company which is the petitioner in Writ No. 120.
(2.) Between the employees and the management some differences arose so much so that the employees went on strike on 20-1-1951. The employers served four notices on them between 20-1-1951 and 23-1-1951 reminding them that the strikes were illegal and that they would be liable to dismissal if they did not stop the strike. By these notices, twenty-four hours were given to the employees to resume their duties if they wanted to continue in the service of the Company. On' 24-1-1951 the services of the employees were terminated in terms of the standing order. Thereafter, the employees appear to have reconsidered the position and they called off the strike unconditionally on 27-1-1951. Subsequent to this, i.e., on the 28th January 1951, the employees were given to understand by the Company that they would be re-employed by it. There is a controversy between the employees and the Company as to whether this re-employment constituted a continuation of their old employment or was a fresh employment on a temporary basis.
(3.) The sugar season came to an end about the end of April. On 24-4-1951, the employees were informed by their employers that their services would not be required thereafter as their conduct had been unsatisfactory and they had been engaged only on a temporary basis. On the service of this notice, the employees presented to 'the Regional Conciliation Board an application on 2-5-1951 requesting the Board to take up the matter. The intervention of the Board proved ineffective and thereafter the State Government had to refer the matter to the adjudication of Shri M. P. Vidyarthi, Regional Conciliation Officer, Meerut. This officer gave his award on 2-7-1951. Shortly put, his conclusions were that the dismissal on 24-4-1951 of the employees by the management was unjustified and illegal. He, therefore, declared that they had not been legally dismissed and were entitled to the wages during the period of enforced unemployment. In arriving at his findings, the adjudicator took into consideration the statement of local officials who had not been subjected to any cross-examination by the management. It is not denied that the attention of the management was not drawn to this evidence at all.;