- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and pe rused the record.
(2.) THE two writ petitions connected together challenge the validity and cor rectness of the impugned order arising out of the same proceedings, hence they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts culjed out from these connected writ petitions are that Sri Vinay Kumar Gaur, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 18151 of 2003 and arrayed as respon dent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 8988 of 2007, was employed as Weighment Clerk in the respondent-Modi Sugar Mills (hereinafter called as the Mills) for the season 1990-91 after interview on 12. 9. 1990 in pursuance of call letter of the employers dated 16. 8. 1990. FACTS: The case of the workman was that after retirement of his father from ser vice of the Mills from the post of Cane Inspector on 8. 7. 1986, he was appointed on the basis of notification dated 15. 7. 1982 and posted by order dated 27. 10. 1990 as Clerk at the Purchase Centre Gate (Outer Centre) of the Mills as permanent seasonal employee. Licence was also taken by the employer Mills for appointing the workman as Weighment Clerk in his name which is required under law. After the close of the season 1990-91 when the workman went to join his duties in the next season on 17. 10. 1991 he was not allowed to work, compelling him to raise an industrial dispute [which was registered as C. P. Case No. 111/92. On concili ation proceedings having failed the following reference was sent to the Labour Court (II), UP. ', Ghaziabad for adjudication where it was registered by the Labour Court as Adjudication Case No. 277 of 1993 :
(3.) ON receipt of summons the workman filed his written statement claiming continuity of service w. e. f. 17. 10. 1991 with full back wages as permanent sea sonal employee. He also adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in sup port of his case. Per contra, the case of the employer-Mills was that reference has not been made by the appropriate Government; that appointment of the workman was tem porary for the period 27. 10. 1990 to 10. 12. 1990 for which he had been paid. There after he was again appointed for the period 14. 12. 1990 to 28. 1. 1991 and lastly for the period 23. 3. 1991 to 15. 4. 1991 and paid in full for his work in the aforesaid periods accordingly; that since the appointment of the workman was temporary he has no right to continue in next season 1991-92 and that provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are therefore not attracted in case of such employee and he is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.;