K.Jain, J. - (1.) Respondent No. 2 espousing the cause of ten workmen, namely, Rani Adhar Dixit, Sequan Dixit. Chandra Shekhar Dixit. Vijay Shankar Dixit. Ram Nakshatra Dixit, Salaraat, Indal Yadav, Mohan Dixit and Ram Dhari Yadav. raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court, Gorakhpur by Government Notification No. 1781/ Sra. Aa./36-Shram (1)/34 (Gorakhpur) /81. dated 31.3.1983. Following dispute was referred for decision by the Industrial Court, Gorakhpur : ^^D;ksa lsok;kstdksa }kjk layXu ifjf'k"V esa vafdrvius 10 Jfedksa dks lhtuy u ?kksf"kr fd;k tkuk ,oa rnuqlkj lqfo/kk;sa u fn;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfudgS\ ;fn ugha rks lEcfU/kr Jfed dk ykHk vuqrks"k fjyhQikus ds vf/kdkjh gS] fdl frfFk rFkk fdl vU; fooj.klfgr\**
(2.) Respondent No. 2, in its written statement before the Labour Court, claimed that all the ten workmen were seasonal "Darban" and had worked for the entire crushing season without any break. They were entitled to the benefits of the standing orders but they were deprived of such benefits of the last several seasons. They claimed that they may be paid minimum wages and retaining allowances etc. like other seasonal Darbans. They further claimed that by declaring them seasonal workmen, they may be directed to be given benefits like other seasonal workmen.
(3.) The petitioner contested the dispute on several grounds Including that the petitioner was bound by the mandatory provisions of the G.O. No. 3158 of 15.7.1982 to fill the resulting vacancies of the retired workmen by the heirs of the retired workmen : that there was a compromise between the petitioner and the Gaon Sabha and an enquiry report dated 28.11.1977 was given by the S.D.M. whereby it was accepted that the services of the aforesaid ten workmen were those of mere casual workers and such compromise was binding upon the parties : that there was no Industrial dispute since the said workmen were not members of respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 2 could not have espoused the cause of the workmen in question.;