# U.P. State Sugar Corp. & Anr v. Dhirendra Kumar Singh 864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 863
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-18
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 2221 of 2005
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-state-sugar-corp-anr-v-dhirendra-kumar-singh-864-indian-law-reports-50620
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Labour Law - UP Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 - Sections 3-B - Standing Order
- Clause B-1(4) - Engagement as Daily
wager - Termination from service - Award
- Workmen has not completed 240 days -
Effect - Labour Court passed the award
treating the daily wager as seasonal
workmen
-
Legality
challenged
-
Jurisdiction of Labour Court questioned -
Held, promotion from one category to
another category was clearly a managerial
function which could not have been
discharged by the Labour Court - In the
absence of a finding to the effect that the
workman has worked for the crushing
seasons in accordance with his case and
has
completed
his
probation
period
envisaged under Clause B-1(4) of the
Standing Orders, the Labour Court could
not have granted seasonal status to the
workman under the Standing Orders. In
absence of that finding, the impugned
award is rendered manifestly illegal. (Para
21 and 23)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

## Text

8 All. U.P. State Sugar Corp. & Anr. Vs. Dhirendra Kumar Singh
863
Promoter to complete the said Project and
remove all the infirmities and deficiencies as
noticed by him. The proceedings leading to the
present case have been initiated at the behest of
the Promoter seeking a direction from the RERA
to the Allottee to make the balance payment, so
that the booked Unit can be handed over to him.
The complaint was favourably considered and
the RERA has made certain directions to the
Allottee to make the payment within 90 days.
Even before expiry of the said period the
allotment has been cancelled. The Promoter did
not even wait for expiry of the period, which was
granted on their application itself and it seems
that in the meanwhile, without intimation or
permission of any of the Authority the said Unit
has been sold. They did not deem it appropriate
to disclose the said details either before any of
the Authorities below or even before this Court
in the present appeal. This court is of the
considered view that the conduct of the
Appellant does not entitle it for any relief in the
present matter, as he has not come to the Court
with clean hand. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
laid down in catena of judgments that if appellant
has not come forward with clean hand, he would
not be entitled to any equitable relief. In the case
of Ramjas Fondation and anr. v. Union of
India & ors., (2010) 14 SCC 38, the following
has been observed:

"21. The principle that a person who does
not come to the court with clean hands is not
entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance
and, in any case, such person is not entitled to
any relief is applicable not only to the petitions
filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the
Constitution, but also to the cases instituted in
other courts and judicial forums. The object
underlying the principle is that every court is not
only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself
from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any
respect for truth and who try to pollute the
stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by
making misstatement or by suppressing facts
which have a bearing on adjudication of the
issue(s) arising in the case."

28. Apart from the above, finding as
recorded by the Tribunal have been duly
considered and examined by this Court also. We
do not find any infirmity with the findings
recorded by the Tribunal that the said Project was
delayed and despite their statement that the
Project shall be completed in June 2017, the
same was not completed even when the
appellant had approached the R.E.R.A.

29. With regard to the Issue "As to whether
any possession-letter was issued by the Promoter
to the Allottee after receipt of the occupancycertificate", the issue was decided against the
promoter, as even according to the Allottee, no
offer of possession was given to him after
obtaining the occupancy-certificate and, lastly,
their conduct that they have cancelled the
allotment prior to the expiry of 90 days, has been
held by the Tribunal to be non-sustainable.

30. In the light of the aforesaid findings
, no interference is required by this Court in
the said matter. No question of law arises for
determination by this Court. The Appeal is
accordingly dismissed and considering the
conduct of the Appellant, it is dismissed with
costs of Rs. 10,000.00 (Ten thousand only).
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 863
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-A No. 2221 of 2005

U.P. State Sugar Corp. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Dhirendra Kumar Singh ...Respondent
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioners:
P.K. Sinha, Anish Srivastava Lal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., P.N. Singh

A. Labour Law - UP Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 - Sections 3-B - Standing Order
- Clause B-1(4) - Engagement as Daily
wager - Termination from service - Award
- Workmen has not completed 240 days -
Effect - Labour Court passed the award
treating the daily wager as seasonal
workmen
-
Legality
challenged
-
Jurisdiction of Labour Court questioned -
Held, promotion from one category to
another category was clearly a managerial
function which could not have been
discharged by the Labour Court - In the
absence of a finding to the effect that the
workman has worked for the crushing
seasons in accordance with his case and
has
completed
his
probation
period
envisaged under Clause B-1(4) of the
Standing Orders, the Labour Court could
not have granted seasonal status to the
workman under the Standing Orders. In
absence of that finding, the impugned
award is rendered manifestly illegal. (Para
21 and 23)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Shri P.K. Sinha, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Shri P.N.
Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioners have prayed for the
following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned award dated 21.4.2004 passed
by the opposite party no.2 as contained in
Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus restraining the
respondents in any manner from executing,
implementing the impugned award as
contained in Annexure-1 to this writ
petition.

(iii) Pass such other orders or
directions which this Hon'ble Court deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the
case in favour of the petitioners.

(iv) Allow the writ petition with cost in
favour of the petitioners.

3. Facts of the case are that the U.P.
State Suger Corporation is a company
registered under Section 617 of the
Company's Act and the same has its
various industrial units located in various
parts of the State of U.P. manufacturing
sugar by vacuum pan process. The
petitioner no.1 is one of such industrial
units of petitioner no.2 situated at Kasba
Jarwal Road, Bahraich manufacturing sugar
by vacuum pan process. The petitioners are
public sector holding companies of the
State of U.P. The opposite party no.1 raised
an industrial dispute before the authority
designated
under
the
U.P.
Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 that his services have
been ilegally and arbitrarily terminated
with effect from 14.11.1994 from the
services of the petitioner no.1 where he was
working in the factory as Magmaman.

The State Government referred the
matter for adjudication to the opposite
party no.2 where the same was registered
as Adjudication Case No.13 of 1996.
Opposite party no.1 filed written statement
before the opposite party no.2 wherein the
opposite party no.1 claimed the declaration
and cancellation of oral termination of the
services of the opposite party no.1 with
effect from 14.11.1994 and further sought a
declaration that opposite party no.1 be
declared to be continuing as working on the
post of Magmaman continuously since
8 All. U.P. State Sugar Corp. & Anr. Vs. Dhirendra Kumar Singh
865
14.11.1994 and further that the opposite
party no.1 may be declared as permanent
seasonal Magmaman.

Petitioner no.1 also filed the writtten
statement before opposite party no.2 on
9.8.1996 wherein it has been stated that
opposite party no.1 is not entitled for any
notice in view of Standing Order L-3 nor
he was required to be paid salary in view of
notice. It has also been stated that the
petitioners were entitled to engage persons
on daily wage basis and opposite party no.1
has not completed 240 days. Rejoinder
reply was filed by opposite party no.1
wherein he has reiterated his allegation as
made in the written statement. On behalf of
opposite party no.1, opposite party no.1
examined himself and on behalf of
petitioner no.1 the time keeper Sri Nand
Kishore was examined.

The matter was heard by the opposite
party no.2 but failed to appreciate the true
facts as stated by the parties. The opposite
party no.2 failed to appreciate that the
terms and conditions of employment of
workman
in
the
Sugar
Industry
manufacturing sugar by Vacuum Pan
Process is governed by the Standing Order
issued under Section 3b of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but the
opposite party no.2 in most illegal and
arbitrary manner passed the impugned
award against the petitioners. Hence this
writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted
that
opposite
party
no.2
alltogather failed to appreciate the fact that
under Standing Order as applicable to the
Vacuum Pan
Industries
there
is
no
provision for conversion of status of
workman. He next submitted that opposite
party no.2 also failed to appreciate that
once a workman is engaged as casual or
permanent he has to continue with the said
status till employer changes his status in its
own discretion.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners
next submitted that opposite party no.2
exceeded his jurisdiction in treating the
declaring the opposite party no.1 as
Seasonal Workman although the opposite
party no.1 himself admitted that he was
daily wager engagd on availability of work.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that opposite party no.2
failed to appreciate that no notice is
required to be given for terminating the
services of the casual workman until the
workman qualifies to be entitled to get a
notice under Section 6-N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that opposite party no.2
failed to appreciate the relevant facts that
opposite party no.1 was not getting the
retaining allowance nor he was ever
claimed for the same and as such, he was
not a Seasonal Workman.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that opposite party no.2 also
failed to appreciate that in the beginning of
the season notice is always sent to all the
Seasonal Workmen of the factory which
opposite
party
no.1
has
specifically
admitted in his statement that same has not
been sent to him and as such, the inference
of opposite party no.1 being a Seasonal
Workman by the opposite party no.2 is
conjectures,
illegal
and
without
any
evidence on the basis of which the opposite
party no.1 could have been declared
Seasonal Workman.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
lastly submitted that opposite party no.1
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has nowhere stated that he has worked
during off after March, 1994 to 14.11.1994
and as such, the finding to the effect that
services of the respondent no.1 were
terminated on 14.11.1994 is illegal and
arbitrary.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the
opposite parties submitted that prior to
passing of the termination order dated
14.11.1994 neither notice nor salary of one
month's period has been given, therefore
award passed by the Labour Court in
favour of respondent no.1 is just and proper
and is not required to be interfered with.

11.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no.1 next submitted that the
Labour Court has not committed any error
of law or jurisdiction in passing the award
which is based on the Standing Orders.

12. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
as well as law report cited by learned
counsel for the petitioner.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgment in the case of
U.P. State Sugar and Cane Development
Corporation Limited (supra), operative
portion of which is extracted hereinbelow:

"22. From the facts as set out
hereinabove and the submissions made by
the respective parties, we are left to decide
the question as to whether even in the light
of the Tribunal's finding that the work
performed by Respondents 2-15 was of a
permanent nature on account whereof their
services were required throughout the year,
it could have declared the said workmen to
be permanent or whether such declaration
amounted
to
usurpation
of
the
management's functions which were beyond
its powers.

23. That there are different categories
of
workers
employed
in
the
sugar
industries, and, in particular, during the
crushing seaon, is not disputed by any of
the parties. It is not denied that part from
the
permanent
workmen,
the
other
categories of workmen are employed
during the crushing season which begins in
the month of October in a given year and
continues till the month of April of the
following year. It is the period during
which the sugarcane crop is harvested, and,
thereafter, transported to different mills
where they are crushed for production of
sugar. Admittedly, as will appear from
Standing Order 2, a muster roll of all
employees, who are not permanent, is
maintained by the different sugar mills and
at the beginning of the crushing season the
seasonal labour who had worked during
the previous crushing season are asked to
join their duties for the crushing season in
their old jobs. It is also not denied that the
pay scales of the different categories of
workmen are different.

24. It has been submitted on behalf of
the apellant that even when the seasonal
workmen are employed during the off
season, they are paid the same wages as
are paid to them during the crusuing
season, which is one of the basic
distinctions
between
them
and
the
permanent workmen who are on the rolls of
the suger mills.

25. It is also an admitted position that
in terms of the policy followed by the sugar
mills, promotions are given from one
category to the next higher category
depending on the number of vacancies as
are available at a given point of time. Even
in the instant case, of the 39 workmen
referred to in the terms of reference, 13 had
been made permanent by the appellant
8 All. U.P. State Sugar Corp. & Anr. Vs. Dhirendra Kumar Singh
867
which supports the case of the appellant
that promotion is given from one category
to the higher categories as and when
vacancies are available and that such
function was clearly a managerial function
which could not have been discharged by
the Labour Court.
26. We are in the agreement with the views
expressed by the Constitution Bench of this
Court in Brooke Bond case as also those of
the three-Judge Bench in hindustan Lever
Ltd. In our view, this is not a case of fitment
depending on the nature of the work
performed, but a case of promotion as and
when vacancies are available. Both the
Labour court as well as Hon'ble Court do
not appear to have considered this aspect
of the matter with the attention it deserved
and proceeded on the basis that this was a
case where respondents 2-15 had been
denied their right to be categorised as
permanent workmen on account of the
nature of the work performed by them
throughout the year. The High Court has, in
fact, merely relied on the findings of the
Labour
Court
without
independently
applying its mind to the said respect of the
matter."

14. Perusal of the above-extracted
order reveals that promotion is given from
one category to the higher categories as and
when vacancies are available and that such
function was clearly a managerial function
which could not have been discharged by
the Labour court.

15. In the case in hands, the opposite
party no.1 raised an industrial dispute on
the ground that his servies have been
illegally and arbitrarily terminated with
effect from 14.11.1994 from the services of
the petitioner no.1 where he was working
in the factory as Magmaman. State
Government referred the matter to opposite
party no.2 where the same was registered
as Adjudication Case No.13 of 1996 in
which the opposite party no.2 has been
pleased to declare that the opposite party
no.1 is entitled to get the benefits of
retrenched workman under Section 6-N of
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

16. I have examined the material on
record in the light of the law report cited by
learned counsel for the petitioner.

17. The opposite party no.1 has not
completed 240 days and he was not a
seasonal workman as have been averred in
the written statement filed by the petitioner
no.1. Working for more than 240 days in a
year was relevant only for the purpose of
application of Section 6-N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes, 1947 providing for
conditions
precedent
to
workman
to
retrench the workman. It does not speak of
acquisition of a right by the workman to be
regularized in service. In this view of the
matter, Labour Court while passing the
impugned award, has not considered this
aspect that the opposite party no.1 has not
completed 240 days' working in a year.

18. It is not denied that part from the
permanent workmen, the other categories
of workmen are employed during the
crushing season which begins in the month
of October in a given year and continues
till the month of April of the following
year. It is the period during which the
sugarcan crop is harvested, and, therefore,
transported to different mills where they are
crushed for production of sugar.

19. Admittedly, as will appear from
Standing Order 2, a muster roll of all
employees, who are not permanent, is
maintined by the different sugar mills and
at the beginning of the crushing season the
868 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
seasonal labour who had working during
the previous crushing season are asked to
join their duties for the crushing season in
their old jobs. It is also not denied that the
pay scale of the different categories of
workmen are different.

20. Even when the seasonal workmen
are employed during the off season, they
are paid the same wages as are paid to them
during the crushing season, which is one of
the basic distintions between them and the
permanent workmen who are on the rolls of
the sugar mills.

21. It is also admitted positition that
in terms of the policy followed by the sugar
mills, promotions are given from one
category to next higher category depending
on the number of vacancies as available at
a given point of time. The promotion is
given from one category to the higher
categories as and when vacancies are
available and that such function was clearly
a managerial function which could not have
been discharged by the Labour Court. In
this view of the matter, the Labour has
committed grave illegality in declaring the
respondent no.1 as Seasonal Workman,
although the respondent no.1 himself
admitted that he was daily wager engaged
on availablity of work.

22. In order to judge the entitlement
of the workmen to be delcared seasonal
under the Standing Orders, the Labour
Court was required to examine whether on
the evidece before it, the workmen or one
or more of them fulfill the requirements of
being seasonal hand(s) as defined under
Clause B-1(2) of the Standing Orders. It
would also have to be determined whether
the requirement of probation envisagd
under Clause B-1(4) are fulfilled on the
evidence before the Labour Court in case of
workman, and if he was entitled to the
status of seasonal employee.

23. The Labour Court on the evidence
led before it and the adverse inference it
has drawn due to non-production of record
by the employer, despite an application by
the workmen in that behalf, could possibly
have held that the workmen have worked
with the employer for the whole of the
crushing
seasons
and
completed
the
probationary period, entitling him to the
status of seasonal workmen. But, that
specific finding has not been recorded. In
the absence of a finding to the effect that
the workman has worked for the crushing
seasons in accordance with his case and has
completed his probation period envisaged
under Clause B-1(4) of the Standing
Orders- at least a finding that the workman
has been engaged for a certain crushing
season and completed his probationary
period- the Labour Court could not have
granted seasonal status to the workman
under the Standing Orders. In absence of
that finding, the impugned award is
rendered manifestly illegal.

24. Thus, the findings in the
impugned award are not based on any legal
evidence and also not supported by valid
reasons. Principles laid down in the
aforesaid jugment clearly apply on the facts
of the present case.

25. Considering in totalities of facts
and circumstances of the case, this writ
petition is allowed. Award dated 21.4.2004
passed
by
the
opposite
party
no.2
(Annexure-1 to this writ petition) is hereby
quashed, remanding the matter to the
opposite party no.2 to decide the case
afresh in accordance with law and in the
light of the obervations made in the body of
this judgment, as expeditiously as possible
8 All. Prof. Ranjana Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
869
preferably within a period of six months
from the date a certified copy of this
judgment is filed by the petitioners before
him.

26. It is made open to both the parties
to lead such further evidence, particularly,
documentary in support of their respective
cases, as may be advised. The Labour Court
shall consider all evidence before it
including any further evidence, if led, as
dirrected hereby, before making a fresh
award. It is also made clear that all
submissions advanced before this Court
would remain open to the parties to urge
before the Labour Court, except the one
relating to lack of jurisdiction with the
Labour Court to pronounce upon the
workmen's
case
that he
is
seasonal
workman, and not temporary. It is also
clarified that the possibility of one inference
that the Labour could have drawn from the
evidence in favour of workman mentioned
hereinabove, shall in no way be construed as
an exdxpression of opinion on this issue.
The Labour Court shall be absolutely free to
draw its own conclusions on the issue,
whether the workmen on the evidence on
record is entitled to the status of seasonal
workmen under the Standing Orders.

27. There shall be no order as to costs
in any of writ petitions decided today.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 869
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-A No. 3180 of 2023

Prof. Ranjana Sharma & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Abhineet Jaiswal, Gaurav Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article 300-A - UP Retirement Benefits
Rules, 1961 - Rules 5 and 9 - Right to
property
-
Gratuity
and
pension
-
Depriving the petitioner by an executive
order - Permissibility - Held, right to
pension and gratuity flow in favour of the
petitioners by virtue of the mandate of
Rules, 1961 - Taking away the gratuity by
an executive order is not permissible -
High Court held it clear violation of Article
300-A of the Constitution of India - Dr.
Hira
Lal's
case
and
Jitendra
Kumar
Srivastava's case relied upon. (Para 14,
15, 16 and 20)

B. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Article
14
-
Right
to
equality
-
Discrimination - While the petitioner,
being doctor of a medical college was
refused to get the benefit of gratuity, the
same benefit has been granted to the
doctors working in the Provincial Health
Services even when the age of such
doctors were increased from 60 to 62
years and were paid salaries for the
extended period - Held, it is a clear
violation of Article 14. (Para 20)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Dr. Hira Lal Vs St. of Bihar & ors.; (2020) 4
SCC 346
2. St. of Jharkhand & ors. Vs Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava & anr.; (2013) 12 SCC 210
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra,
learned Counsel for the petitioners and
learned Standing Counsel.