TARUN AGARWALA,J. - (1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award, passed by the Labour Court, directing the petitioner to appoint the workers as seasonal workmen in the petitioner's sugar factory. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition is that the workers raised an industrial dispute with regard to their non- appointment and contended that the company had entered into various settlements with the union from time to time, wherein, the heirs of the deceased employees as well as the sons of the retired employees were to be given appointments in the sugar factory. On the basis of these settlements, the workers contended that they have a right for appointment, upon the retirement of their father, in the services of the company, and that, the settlement which has the force of law is liable to be enforced and that the Labour Court was liable to issue an award directing the employers to give an appointment letter. The claim of the opposite party was resisted. The employers contended that there is no such binding settlement upon the employers to give appointments to the sons of the retired employees, and that, in any case, such a settlement, if any, is opposed to public policy. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence on record, gave an award directing the employers to appoint the workers as seasonal employees. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition which was entertained and the entire award was stayed by an interim order of this Court.
(2.) HEARD Shri R.K. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.K. Rai, the learned counsel for the opposite party. At the outset, it was also urged that the petitioner's company has been taken over by the U.P.State Sugar Corporation, and consequently, the said award cannot be enforced upon the new management, which is said to have its own rules and regulations of appointment in various sugar factories of the Corporation. The petitioner has annexed various settlements that had been entered into with the union and the former employees from time to time. A perusal of all these settlements indicates that the management was to give due consideration to the sons of the deceased employees and retired employees for suitable employment. In one settlement, it was stated that the sons of the retired workmen would also be considered on merit for employment. In another settlement, it was stated that the employment to the sons of the retired workers would be given a preferential right, and yet in another settlement, it was stated that the appointments would be given on the basis of their suitability.
(3.) IN the light of these settlements, it cannot be said that the management had agreed to give appointments on the ground that an employee had retired, and therefore, his son was liable to be given appointment.;