Siddharth, J. - (1.) Heard Sri B.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) The petitioner has filed the above noted writ petition, praying for direction to the respondents to pay him wages in accordance with Third Sugar Wage Board Recommendations from Season 1991-1992 as revised from time to time and for past season since 1984-1985 in accordance with Second Sugar Wage Board Recommendations in unskilled grade and regularize his services on the post of Seasonal Watchman. Further prayed has been made for quashing the order dated 06.11.1999, passed by the General Manager Kisan Sahakari Chini Mill Ltd., Ghosi, District Mau.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Chaukidar in the season 1984-85 in Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd., Ghosi (herenafter referred to as the ''Mill') District Mau. Since his appointment the petitioner was paid wages on daily basis, initially at the rate Rs.8/- and then at the rate of Rs.47/- per day. In the season 1991-92 the petitioner was employed as Watchman of the Mill and was paid wages at the rate of 18/- per day. The Mill has been registered under the co-operative Societies Act and is wholly and completely controlled by the State Government and is also under the control and supervision of the U.P. Sahakari Chini Mills Sangh Ltd., 9-A Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow, which has been constituted as a Federal Authority under Section 123 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and as such the respondents are ''Authorities' for the purposes of Article 12 and 226 of the Constitution of India and is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Besides the Mill has also been registered under the Factories Act. Service Conditions of the petitioner was previously governed by the Standing Orders, 1958 enforced by the State Government under section 3(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which has now been replaced by the new Standing Order enforced by the State Government under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act as published in U.P. Gazette Extra- ordinary dated September 27, 1988. Under the classification of the employees of the Sugar Factories of the State including the Mill there are only six categories of workmen which does not include daily wage workman or employees. These categories are; permanent, seasonal, temporary, probationers, apprentices and substitutes. Consequently the petitioner is the permanent seasonal watchman of the Mill and is entitled to all the benefits as available to him under law as also under the Standing Orders. Besides the aforesaid Standing Orders, the State Government has issued and enforced Sugar Wage Board Recommendations, 1961, 1970 and 1991. Second Wage Board Recommendations were published in U.P. Gazette Extra- Ordinary dated November, 27, 1970. The Third Sugar Wage Board Recommendation were published in U.P. Gazette Extra- Ordinary dated January, 31, 1991. These two Sugar Wage Board Recommendation are alone relevant for the purposes of the present case in as much as the petitioner has been admittedly appointed and working in the Mill as a watchman since the season 1984-85. In the Second Wage Board Recommendation the post of watchman has been given at serial no.46 of the Extra - Ordinary Gazette dated 27.11.1970 at page no.33 and the said post of watchman has been placed in the scale of unskilled i.e., Rs. 110-1-119-2-129. In the third Sugar Wage Board Recommendation published in U.P. Gazette Extra ordinary dated January, 31, 1991 the post of watchman has been mentioned at serial number 36, page 54 and placed in the scale of unskilled employees i.e., in the grade of Rs.800-10-900-15-1050. The regular watchman like Rajendra Yadav, Ram Bachan, Ram Umar etc., who are working in the Mill are getting the said scale as provided in the Third Sugar Wage Board Recommendation at present. However, the petitioner who is performing the same duties is being paid wages at the rate of Rs.47/- per day as has been stated earlier. It would thus be seen that despite the Second Sugar Wage Board Recommendation and despite the nature of the duties performed by the petitioner and post held by him he is being exploited by the respondents and is not being paid his wages as admissible under law. Non- payment of the scale and wages to the petitioner by the respondents amounts to his exploitation which is prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution of India. Besides the petitioner is entitled to his wages according to his work performed by him and also as performed by the regular watchman named earlier in the petition such as Rajendra Yadav, Ram Bachan Ram and Umar and as such is entitled to the protection of Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India. Non-payment of the wages to the petitioner in accordance with the recommendations of the Third Sugar Wage Board aforesaid amounts to clear violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by the respondents. It is also relevant to point out that the petitioner had also been interviewed by the authorities of the Mill for his regularization as Watchman in February, 1991 and was declared successful but though his appointment letter was prepared and dispatch number 833 was allotted to him, but the same were not issued to him on account of some orders of the State Government whereby all such appointment letters had been withheld for the reasons known to the respondents. The petitioner and one Raj Bali filed a writ petition no.3272 of 1992 for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay wages in accordance with the Sugar Wage Recommendations and the said writ petition was finally disposed off on 22.07.99 directing the respondents to decide their representations for payment of wages. On receipt of the certified copy of the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 22.07.99 the petitioner submitted his representations to the respondents on 1.09.99 and 4.9.99 but the respondent no.1 who is the appointing authority of the petitioner has rejected the same by his impugned order dated 6.11.99.;