CWP No. 18196 of 1991 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18196 of 1991 Date of Decision : 4.12.2009 Deshpal Singh & others .......... Petitioners Versus The Palwal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Palwal ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. R.S. Sihota, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of six Civil Writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 18196 of 1991 titled Deshpal Singh & others Versus The Palwal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Palwal , CWP No. 18072 of 1991 titled Phool Singh Versus The Palwal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Palwal, CWP No. 17835 of 1991 titled Udai Vir Singh Versus The Palwal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Palwal, CWP No. 16219 of 1991 titled Dinesh Kumar Sharma & others Versus The Palwal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Palwal, CWP No. 1676 of 1992 titled Joginder Singh Versus The Palwal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Palwal, and CWP No. 18074 of 1991 titled Chander Bhan Versus The Palwal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Palwal, as the common question of law and facts are involved. For the sake of brevity facts are being taken from CWP No. CWP No. 18196 of 1991 2 18196 of 1991 titled Deshpal Singh & others Versus The Palwal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Palwal. The petitioner was initially appointed as Cane Clerk on a Seasonal permanent post on 1.2.1985. On the basis of seniority maintained of the Seasonal permanent employees, the petitioners were offered appointment on regular basis as Cane Clerk, on the terms & conditions as per Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. The Managing Director in view of the decision of the Board dated 28.6.1991, ordered the cancellation of appointment, issued vide Annexure P-1. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that, the cancellation of their appointment is contrary to the terms and conditions of their appointment, as no notice as per the terms of the appointment was issued to the petitioners before cancellation. The fact that there is no order of termination, and order has been cancelled in view of the decision of the Board of Directors, is not disputed in the written statement. Somewhat identical case of seasonal permanent employees came before this Court in a case of Khem Raj Vs. Palwal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Palwal through its Managing Director CWP No. 18956 of 1991 decided on 14.9.1992, wherein this Court was pleased to set aside the order of cancellation of appointment by recording as under :- “ A bare perusal of paragraph (2) of the appointment letter leaves no doubt that the petitioners were appointed against seasonal permanent posts, initially for a CWP No. 18196 of 1991 3 period of one/ two crushing season/s from the date of their joining and the said period of probation was liable to extended or dispensed with earlier at the discretion of the Management to terminate the services without assigning any reason by giving a week's notice during the probation period or the extended period of probation. Para 5 further gives a right to the employee to leave the Mills services by submitting one month's notice or one month's gross salary in lieu thereof. Similarly, the Management has been given this right to terminate the services of the petitioner/s on one month's notice even after the completion of probation period. Admittedly, the petitioners are still in service under the interim stay order of Division Bench of this Court staying termination till further orders. In view of the above terms of the appointment letter, there is no option but to hold that the cancellation of the services of the petitioners, in the circumstances of this case, without giving notice against the specific terms of appointment, in an arbitrary manner had resulted in miscarriage of justice and violation of the terms and of contract as well as the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the impugned orders are cancellation of the services of the petitioners in each writ petition are ordered to be quashed by CWP No. 18196 of 1991 4 accepting these petitions. There is, however, no order as to costs, as the petitioners are still in service of the respondents.” The issue raised in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Khem Raj Vs. Palwal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Palwal through its Managing Director (supra). Accordingly these writ petitions are allowed, orders impugned are set aside but with no order as to costs. 4.12.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE