ORDER Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Heard Sri Chinta Manl Yadav for petitioner and Sri A.K. Singh as well as learned standing counsel for respondents.
2. Petitioner is challenging order dated 24/27.8.1991, passed by respondent No. 1, as well as the order dated 19.12.1991, passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby his appointment as weighing clerk on permanent basis was terminated and he was transferred as daily wage weighing clerk.
3. The facts in brief are that petitioner was appointed and was working as weighing clerk on daily wages in respondent sugar mill for several years. It is stated that he was performing duties of permanent employee yet he was not made permanent by any specific order. There was some resentment amongst the union of workers and the management, which ultimately resulted in an agreement in between the union and the management whereby it was agreed that all persons who were performing duty of permanent nature for several years shall be regularised. A selection committee was constituted. The petitioner participated in the selection on 14.2.1991 and was duly selected and was made permanent on 15.2.1991 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Due to transfer of General Manager, the charge could not be handed over and that by impugned orders the selection was cancelled and he was again transferred as weighing clerk on daily wages. Petitioner has relied the judgment of this Court in Chandra Bhusan Sahi and Ors. v. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill and Ors. Writ Petition No. 4523 of 1992 and other connected writ petition in which the impugned order in the similar nature was quashed by this Court and a special appeal against the order was dismissed.
4. In the counter-affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Legal Assistant, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills, Ltd. Ghosi, district Mau, it is stated that the mill is a Co-operative Society governed by the provisions of U. P, Co-operative Societies Act. No action in pursuance of letter dated 24/27.8.1991, has been taken against petitioner. No appointment letter was issued officially and served upon petitioner to give him a benefit of a permanent employee and thus, the question of termination of his permanent employment on the basis of the aforesaid letter does not arises. The order dated 19.12.1991, passed by the Chief Cane Officer was purely an administrative order during the crushing season posting the petitioner at respective place. The petitioner was engaged as a daily wager and is working as such. The order dated 19.12.1991, only shows the nature of his engagement in the last column. On account of extra need of hands during crushing season number of persons are usually engaged for performing such job as per the availability of work. They cannot claim permanency in their employment. Petitioner participated in the interview. A list of 41 persons duly selected was published on 14.4.1991. Petitioner's name did not figure in the same list. Those 41 persons were duly regularised and appointment letters were issued to them. Petitioner was not selected for permanent employment. The list of successful candidates has been enclosed to the counter-affidavit. The new General Manager posted after Sri Halwant Singh against whom there were several charges of irregularities enquired into the matter and found that none of the files for the recruitment were available. The entire original file of recruitment was kept by Sri Halwant Singh with him. No such letter of appointment as claimed was issued to petitioner.
5. The two sets of writ petitions were filed in this Court. Whereas in Writ Petition No. 4523 of 1992, Chandra Bhusan Sahi and others v. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills and Ors., was allowed, the special appeal was dismissed, the other set of writ petition namely Writ Petition No. 6878 of 1992, Awadhesh Kumar Singh v. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., was allowed, but a Special Appeal No. 293 of 1993 against the said judgment was allowed by this Court on 20.5.1993. The Division Bench held that the respondents were appointed purely on daily wages to meet the temporary need which arose on account of allotment of eight new cane centres to the mills and that the controversy should be decided by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal and that the writ petition was not appropriate remedy for resolving the dispute. The Bench thereafter observed that the writ petition would have been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy, but since the learned single Judge has entertained the writ petition, the appeal was disposed of on its merits. A Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 20582 of 1993 was dismissed by Supreme Court on 28.2.1993.
6. The facts of this case are covered by Awadhesh Kumar Singh's case. In the present case, there is no admission made by the respondents that petitioner was selected. His name did not find place in the select list, and no appointment letter was issued, and as such he cannot get any benefit of permanent employment on the basis of the aforesaid selection. He was a daily wager and will be taken in permanent employment in due course whenever need arises in accordance with law.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.