High Court · 2025

1. The instant intra- court appeal is directed against the judgement of learned Single Judge dated 7.3.2025 in Writ-A No. 8291 of 2024 filed by the petitioner Ram Ashish Yadav (non appellant). In the said writ petition, the petitioner, Ram Ashish Yadav, has challenged the orders dated 1.5.2024 and 24.2.2020 passed by the General Manager, Kisan Chini Sahkari Mills Ltd., Sathiaon, District Azamgarh and the order dated 22.2.2020 passed by the Managing Director, Kisan Chini Sahkari Mills Ltd., the appellants, herein. The effect of the aforesaid orders was that the petitioner, who was in employment of the Co- operative Society namely Kisan Chini Sahkari Mills Ltd. Sathiaon, District Azamgarh (for short ‘Sugar Mill’) since June, 2015 as a daily- wager, is held not entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 2.3.2015. Further, he has been held to be in employment of Sugar Mill since 24.02.2020 as an outsourced employee. The learned Single Judge has held that earlier engagement of the petitioner was on daily- wage basis directly by the Sugar Mills but subsequently, he was engaged through a service provider and this was done to defeat the lawful entitlements of the petitioner under Government Order dated 1

2.3.2015 and amounts to an exploitative labour practice and thus not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed that the petitioner would be treated to be employed as peon since the year 1992-93 without any break and thus entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 2.3.2015.

2. Sri V.B. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, makes statement that at present, the petitioner-respondent is being paid minimum wages as prescribed by the labour department. The said clarification has been provided by him in the view of previous order dated 7.5.2025 whereby he was required to clarify whether the petitioner-respondent is being paid minimum wages or not.

3. Sri V.B. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the petitioner- respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 2.3.2015 inasmuch as he had not completed 10 years of service as daily-wager in the Sugar Unit of the appellant. It is urged that the petitioner was employed on daily-wage basis since June, 2015 and this fact was also admitted to the petitioner. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is different from Bal Kishan Yadav and the learned Single Judge without recording any finding as to how the case of the respondent is similar to Bal Kishan Yadav, has wrongly held that denial of the benefit of Government Order to petitioner amounts to a discriminatory practice by the appellants.

4. Sri T.A. Rajesh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner- respondent submits that the respondent has already filed various affidavits in the writ petition and, therefore, he does not intend to file any further affidavit and prayed that the instant appeal be decided. He submits that the petitioner had put in several years of service and there was a specific recommendation by the Managing Director on 29.4.2017 for extending the benefit of the Government Order dated 2.3.2015 to the petitioner and to Bal Kishan Yadav. As such, the learned Single Judge has rightly extended the benefit of the Government Order.

5. The main issue is whether the petitioner-respondent, herein, is entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 2.3.2015 and whether any discrimination was made against him by the Department. The other would be whether the appellants could change the status of the petitioner from daily wager to outsourced employee.

6. The relevant part of the Government Order dated 2.3.2015 is extracted below: 2 "इस सम्बन्ध में ्ቚाधिधकारी की हैसिसयत से उ०्ቚ० सहकारी चीनी मिमल्स संघ लि ० की चीनी मिम ों/आसवमिनयों के कम$चारिरयों के लि ए उ०्ቚ० सहकारी समिमधित अधिधमिनयम-1965 के अनुमन्य पुनरीधि*त वेतन संरचना के आधार पर रिर्ሹ पदों के मिवरु्ቍ कम से कम 10 व्ቧ$ या इससे अधिधक अवधिध से काय$रत सूचीब्ቍ दैमिनक वेतनभोगी कम$चारिरयों को दैमिनक मजदूरी (काय$रत पद का न्यूनतम मू मजदूरी + महँगाई भ्ቈा) 30 मिदन से मिवभासिजत करके संगणि9त की गई ्ቚधितमिदन की दर पर भुगतान लि ये जाने की अनुमन्यता अदान करता हू से ही ्ቚभावी होगी तथा इससे पूव$ की अवधिध का कोई एरिरयर देय नही होगा।" ँ। उ्ሹ व्यवस्था आदेश जारी होने की धितणिथ (emphasis supplied)

7. The specific case of the appellants in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition was that earlier the petitioner was working as a daily- wage labourer with Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Rasra, Ballia. It is only since June, 2015, the petitioner was in employment of the appellant Sugar Mill as daily wager. At the time of issuance of Government Order dated 2.3.2015, the petitioner- respondent was not even in employment of the appellant Sugar Mill. There is no evidence in the official record that the petitioner was transferred from Sugar Mill, Rasra to the appellant Sugar Mill. The petitioner also could not produce any such evidence. In paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of General Manager, Kisan Chini Sahkari Mills Ltd. Sathiaon, District Azamgarh, the following specific pleading was made:- "The petitioner has filed no document in support which could substantiate that he was transferred to Sathiaon Chini Mill, Azamgarh by an official order. The mill has also enquired about the said fact but there were no document on record which could substantiate that the petitioner was transferred from Rasra to Sathiaon on an official order."

8. In paragraph -9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has admitted that earlier he was working with Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Rasra, Ballia. It is also admitted that he started working with the appellant Sugar Mills from 2015-16. The date of employment has not been given. The specific finding in the order dated 1.5.2024 is that he was in employment of the appellant Sugar Mill since June, 2015 only. The 3 appellant has failed to show that the said finding is in any manner illegal or perverse. The petitioner has also not filed any evidence to prove that it was a case of transfer from one Sugar Mill to another Sugar Mill. Thus, on the date of issuance of Government Order, the petitioner was not even in employment of the appellant Sugar Mill. The requirement under the Government Order is that a person should have worked atleast for 10 years as daily-wager and that too against vacant post, both of which were not fulfilled in the present case.

9. As regards alleged discrimination, there is no pleading in the writ petition or any of the affidavits that how Bal Kishan Yadav was identically circumstanced. The letter of Managing Director dated 29.4.2017 only refers to the recommendation received from the Sugar Mill for extending benefit of Government Order to the petitioner as well as Bal Kishan Yadav. The recommendation was returned to the Sugar Mill to ascertain itself the eligibility as per the government order and relevant Rules. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was duly examined in terms of the Government Order and he was not found entitled to the benefit thereunder. The letter of the Managing Director dated 29.4.2017 does not amount to according approval to the grant of benefit under the government order to the petitioner and merely because Bal Kishan Yadav was ultimately found entitled to benefit of the Government Order would not make it a case of discrimination.

10. We now proceed to examine the issue as to whether the appellants could have changed the nature of employment of the petitioner from ‘daily wager’ to ‘outsourced employee’. By letter dated 22.2.2020, Appellant no. 1, flagged the issue relating to non- compliance with the decision of the Federation dated 14.12.2019 to dispense with the services of all daily wagers, except those working against technical posts. In order to ensure compliance, it seems that appellant Sugar Mill, changed the status of the petitioner from daily wager to an employee hired through a service provider. We agree with the view of learned Single Judge that employer cannot misclassify or change the status of any employee to deprive him of any benefit which he is otherwise entitled to under law. The view is consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India, (2025) 3 SCC 26. As such, no interference is required with the same. In case, any benefit has been denied to the petitioner for the said reason, it shall be made available to the petitioner without delay. 4

11. In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

12. No order as to costs. . (R.M.N. Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5

1. The instant intra- court appeal is directed against the judgement of learned Single Judge dated 7.3.2025 in Writ-A No. 8291 of 2024 filed by the petitioner Ram Ashish Yadav (non appellant). In the said writ petition, the petitioner, Ram Ashish Yadav, has challenged the orders dated 1.5.2024 and 24.2.2020 passed by the General Manager, Kisan Chini Sahkari Mills Ltd., Sathiaon, District Azamgarh and the order dated 22.2.2020 passed by the Managing Director, Kisan Chini Sahkari Mills Ltd., the appellants, herein. The effect of the aforesaid orders was that the petitioner, who was in employment of the Co- operative Society namely Kisan Chini Sahkari Mills Ltd. Sathiaon, District Azamgarh (for short ‘Sugar Mill’) since June, 2015 as a daily- wager, is held not entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 2.3.2015. Further, he has been held to be in employment of Sugar Mill since 24.02.2020 as an outsourced employee. The learned Single Judge has held that earlier engagement of the petitioner was on daily- wage basis directly by the Sugar Mills but subsequently, he was engaged through a service provider and this was done to defeat the lawful entitlements of the petitioner under Government Order dated 1

2.3.2015 and amounts to an exploitative labour practice and thus not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge directed that the petitioner would be treated to be employed as peon since the year 1992-93 without any break and thus entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 2.3.2015.

2. Sri V.B. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, makes statement that at present, the petitioner-respondent is being paid minimum wages as prescribed by the labour department. The said clarification has been provided by him in the view of previous order dated 7.5.2025 whereby he was required to clarify whether the petitioner-respondent is being paid minimum wages or not.

3. Sri V.B. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the petitioner- respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 2.3.2015 inasmuch as he had not completed 10 years of service as daily-wager in the Sugar Unit of the appellant. It is urged that the petitioner was employed on daily-wage basis since June, 2015 and this fact was also admitted to the petitioner. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is different from Bal Kishan Yadav and the learned Single Judge without recording any finding as to how the case of the respondent is similar to Bal Kishan Yadav, has wrongly held that denial of the benefit of Government Order to petitioner amounts to a discriminatory practice by the appellants.

4. Sri T.A. Rajesh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner- respondent submits that the respondent has already filed various affidavits in the writ petition and, therefore, he does not intend to file any further affidavit and prayed that the instant appeal be decided. He submits that the petitioner had put in several years of service and there was a specific recommendation by the Managing Director on 29.4.2017 for extending the benefit of the Government Order dated 2.3.2015 to the petitioner and to Bal Kishan Yadav. As such, the learned Single Judge has rightly extended the benefit of the Government Order.

5. The main issue is whether the petitioner-respondent, herein, is entitled to the benefit of Government Order dated 2.3.2015 and whether any discrimination was made against him by the Department. The other would be whether the appellants could change the status of the petitioner from daily wager to outsourced employee.

6. The relevant part of the Government Order dated 2.3.2015 is extracted below: 2 "इस सम्बन्ध में ्ቚाधिधकारी की हैसिसयत से उ०्ቚ० सहकारी चीनी मिमल्स संघ लि ० की चीनी मिम ों/आसवमिनयों के कम$चारिरयों के लि ए उ०्ቚ० सहकारी समिमधित अधिधमिनयम-1965 के अनुमन्य पुनरीधि*त वेतन संरचना के आधार पर रिर्ሹ पदों के मिवरु्ቍ कम से कम 10 व्ቧ$ या इससे अधिधक अवधिध से काय$रत सूचीब्ቍ दैमिनक वेतनभोगी कम$चारिरयों को दैमिनक मजदूरी (काय$रत पद का न्यूनतम मू मजदूरी + महँगाई भ्ቈा) 30 मिदन से मिवभासिजत करके संगणि9त की गई ्ቚधितमिदन की दर पर भुगतान लि ये जाने की अनुमन्यता अदान करता हू से ही ्ቚभावी होगी तथा इससे पूव$ की अवधिध का कोई एरिरयर देय नही होगा।" ँ। उ्ሹ व्यवस्था आदेश जारी होने की धितणिथ (emphasis supplied)

7. The specific case of the appellants in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition was that earlier the petitioner was working as a daily- wage labourer with Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Rasra, Ballia. It is only since June, 2015, the petitioner was in employment of the appellant Sugar Mill as daily wager. At the time of issuance of Government Order dated 2.3.2015, the petitioner- respondent was not even in employment of the appellant Sugar Mill. There is no evidence in the official record that the petitioner was transferred from Sugar Mill, Rasra to the appellant Sugar Mill. The petitioner also could not produce any such evidence. In paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of General Manager, Kisan Chini Sahkari Mills Ltd. Sathiaon, District Azamgarh, the following specific pleading was made:- "The petitioner has filed no document in support which could substantiate that he was transferred to Sathiaon Chini Mill, Azamgarh by an official order. The mill has also enquired about the said fact but there were no document on record which could substantiate that the petitioner was transferred from Rasra to Sathiaon on an official order."

8. In paragraph -9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has admitted that earlier he was working with Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Rasra, Ballia. It is also admitted that he started working with the appellant Sugar Mills from 2015-16. The date of employment has not been given. The specific finding in the order dated 1.5.2024 is that he was in employment of the appellant Sugar Mill since June, 2015 only. The 3 appellant has failed to show that the said finding is in any manner illegal or perverse. The petitioner has also not filed any evidence to prove that it was a case of transfer from one Sugar Mill to another Sugar Mill. Thus, on the date of issuance of Government Order, the petitioner was not even in employment of the appellant Sugar Mill. The requirement under the Government Order is that a person should have worked atleast for 10 years as daily-wager and that too against vacant post, both of which were not fulfilled in the present case.

9. As regards alleged discrimination, there is no pleading in the writ petition or any of the affidavits that how Bal Kishan Yadav was identically circumstanced. The letter of Managing Director dated 29.4.2017 only refers to the recommendation received from the Sugar Mill for extending benefit of Government Order to the petitioner as well as Bal Kishan Yadav. The recommendation was returned to the Sugar Mill to ascertain itself the eligibility as per the government order and relevant Rules. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was duly examined in terms of the Government Order and he was not found entitled to the benefit thereunder. The letter of the Managing Director dated 29.4.2017 does not amount to according approval to the grant of benefit under the government order to the petitioner and merely because Bal Kishan Yadav was ultimately found entitled to benefit of the Government Order would not make it a case of discrimination.

10. We now proceed to examine the issue as to whether the appellants could have changed the nature of employment of the petitioner from ‘daily wager’ to ‘outsourced employee’. By letter dated 22.2.2020, Appellant no. 1, flagged the issue relating to non- compliance with the decision of the Federation dated 14.12.2019 to dispense with the services of all daily wagers, except those working against technical posts. In order to ensure compliance, it seems that appellant Sugar Mill, changed the status of the petitioner from daily wager to an employee hired through a service provider. We agree with the view of learned Single Judge that employer cannot misclassify or change the status of any employee to deprive him of any benefit which he is otherwise entitled to under law. The view is consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India, (2025) 3 SCC 26. As such, no interference is required with the same. In case, any benefit has been denied to the petitioner for the said reason, it shall be made available to the petitioner without delay. 4

11. In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

12. No order as to costs. . (R.M.N. Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5