Wanchoo, J.— This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial matter. The appellant is a sugar mill in Iqbalpur, District Saharanpur. The mill was erected at Iqbalpur and started working from 4-2-1955, and closed for that season on 28-5-1955. The case of the respondent workmen was that 252 workmen mentioned in the annexure to the order of reference were the direct employees of the mill who had worked during the latter half of the season 1954-55. They were therefore entitled as seasonal workmen to employment in the succeeding season; but the management did not give employment to any of them in the season 1955-56 and to only four of them in the season 1956-57. The workmen therefore claimed that they were entitled to compensation on account of unemployment during the two seasons.
2. The case of the appellant, on the other hand, was that these 252 workmen were not its employees but were the employees of the contractors and that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and these 252 workmen. Further, it was contended that there had been a compromise of this dispute between the appellant and the workmen on 11-6-1956, and that in view of that compromise the reference was incompetent. The appellant also disputed the facts as urged on behalf of the workmen. Its case was that these 252 workmen who had worked in the 1954-55 season were not its employees and the appellant was not therefore bound to give them employment in 1955-56 and 1956-57 seasons. This plea was based on the contention that these 252 workmen were the employees of the contractors.
3. This dispute was referred to the Labour Court and came up for hearing finally before the Labour Court at Bareilly. It found that the reference was valid, that these workmen were not contractors' workmen but were the employees of the appellant, and that 186 of them had worked during the latter half of the season 1954-55 and were therefore entitled to re-employment in the succeeding seasons in view of the provision in Part K of the Standing Order which is as follows:
“A seasonal workman who has worked or, but for illness or any other unavoidable cause, would have worked under a factory during the whole of the second half of the last preceding season will be employed by the factory in the current season.”
Of these 186, four were taken in service during 1956-57 season. It therefore ordered payment of compensation to the remaining 182 workmen subject to certain conditions.
4. Shri Veda Vyas appearing for the appellant has not contested the findings of the Labour Court with respect to the competence of the reference, to the employment of the 252 workmen direct by the mill, and to 186 workmen having worked for the latter half of the season; his main contention has been that out of 182 workmen found by the Labour Court to be entitled to compensation, 83 as shown in Ex. E-30 were employed in the season 1956-57 and were therefore not entitled to compensation on the same principle on which the Labour Court ordered deduction of one month's wages from the compensation due to them, as they were admitted by the respondent to have worked for about a month during that season. Secondly, Shri Vedavyas contends that the payment of this compensation should not be held to amount to working in the latter half of the season so as to entitle those workmen to whom such compensation is paid to employment in the seasons succeeding 1956-57.
5. The first question therefore that arises is whether the workmen mentioned in Ex. E-30 are entitled to any compensation at all. It is not disputed that if these workmen had worked during the season 1956-57, they would not be entitled to any compensation. The Labour Court also recognised this when it ordered deduction of one month's wages out of the compensation due to these workmen because it was of the view that these workmen had worked for one month during 1956-57. It seems however that the Labour Court overlooked the evidence of Attar Chand (EW 4) and the list Ex. E-30 which he proved and filed. Ex. E-30 gives the names of the workmen who were employed during 1956-57 season whether by the contractors or by the mill directly and also shows the period for which these workmen worked. A perusal of this list shows that most of the workmen shown therein worked for a major part of the season 1956-57. The Labour Court seems to have accepted the evidence on behalf of the workmen in this connection to the effect that these men worked for a month and has given no reason why it was not prepared to accept the correctness of Ex. E-30. As we have already pointed out, it seems to have ignored that list altogether, though it was produced and proved by the evidence of Attar Chand. It has referred to Ex. E-21. This is more or less identical with Ex. E-30, and on the basis of Ex. E-21 it has held that from the compensation payable to these workmen, one month's wages will have to be deducted for they were apparently employed for one month. It has also remarked that though list Ex. E-21 was proved, it did not mention the period of employment of these workmen. That is undoubtedly so; but the list Ex. E-21 was produced on 8-8-1958 while list Ex. E-30 was produced later on 3-9-1958, remedying the defects in list Ex. E-21. But this subsequent list has been completely ignored by the tribunal and this has introduced a serious infirmity in its decision with respect to the workmen in list Ex. E-30. A perusal of Ex. E-30 shows that most of the workmen mentioned therein worked for a large part of the 1956-57 season. In the circumstances we are of opinion that the workmen mentioned in Ex. E-30 are not entitled to any compensation, for they were taken in employment either directly or through the contractors in the 1956-57 season. In the circumstances we are of opinion that the workmen mentioned in Ex. 30 are not entitled to any compensation, for they were taken in employment eithers directly or through the contractors in the 1956-57 season. The case of the workmen that only four workmen were employed for 1956-57 and that some workmen were employed by the contractors for about a month and then turned out is falsified by Ex. E-30 to which the Labour Court has failed to refer altogether. The appeal therefore must be allowed with respect to these workmen in Ex. E-30 and so far as these workmen are concerned they will be entitled to no compensation.
6. As for the second contention of Shri Veda Vyas, namely, that those workmen who have been paid compensation as ordered by the Labour Court should not be held entitled to re-employment in the seasons succeeding to season 1956-57, all that need be said is that the Standing Order which lays down that a seasonal workman who has worked or, but for illness or any other unavoidable cause, would have worked under a factory during the whole of the second half of the last preceding season will be employed by the factory in the current season, presupposes that those who have actually worked in the preceding season would have preference over those to whom compensation has been awarded. The difficulty has arisen in this case because a number of new men were employed in 1956-57 in preference to those to whom the Labour Court eventually awarded compensation with the result that the labour force now available is more than the mill can absorb. In this state of affairs, we are of opinion that those who actually worked in the latter half of 1956-57 season would be entitled to preference over those to whom compensation is being awarded; but if there are vacancies those to whom compensation has been awarded will have preference over new men, provided they apply for employment. We may note that Shri Veda Vyas on behalf of the appellant has conceded that in case of vacancies, those to whom compensation has been awarded will be entitled to preference over new men.
7. We therefore partly allow the appeal and modify the order of the Labour Court to this extent that the workmen mentioned in Ex. E-30 will not be entitled to any compensation and that those actually employed in 1956-57 will have preference for employment in the succeeding seasons over those to whom compensation has been awarded by the Labour Court subject however to preference being given to the workmen to whom compensation has been awarded over new men in case these workmen apply for employment in the succeeding seasons. In the circumstances we pass no order as to costs.