JUDGMENT S.R. Singh, J. - Chandra Bhushan Sahi, Deena Nath Yadav and Ajai Kumar Singh have filed writ petitions No. 4523 of 1992, 5636 of 1992 and 4483 of 1992 respectively. The principal question involved in each of these petitions is as to whether Chandra Bhushan Sahi, Deena Nath Yadav and Ajai Kumar Singh are entitled to be treated as seasonal workman in relation to the respondents Mills within the meaning of Standing Orders, 1988 read with Notification No. 668 (HI)/XXXVY-2-l 15 (HI)-89 dated Lucknow January 31, 1991 issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under sub-clause (b) of Section 3 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with a view to implementing recommendations of Wage Board constituted by the Government of India and get the benefits and privilege of a seasonal workman under the provisions of the Standing Orders, 1988 and the Notification dated 31-1-1991 referred to above. As such with the consent of the parties Learned counsel, these writ petitions were heard together for being disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner Chandra Bhushan Sahi was appointed Sheet Writer/Weighment clerk in the respondent Mills for the first time in crushing season 1988-89 and Worked for the whole of the season and was allowed to continue as such in the subsequent seasons 1989-90 and 1990-91. His grievance is that having worked continuously for three crushing seasons, he was entitled to be treated as seasonal workman within the meaning of the terms as defined in the standing order and entitled to its benefits, but, it is alleged, he was denied engagement and other benefits admissible to a seasonal workman in the crushing season following 1990-91. It is alleged in the writ petition that he has been denied employment in the Mills on account of the illegal direction contained in the impugned letters dated 12-8-1991, 16-8-1991 and 24-8-1991. Aggrieved he has come up to this court under Article 226 of of the Constitution seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders contained in the letters dated 12-8-1991, 16-8-1991 and 24-8-1991, and for writ of mandamus directing the respondents including the General Manager of the Mills to permit him (petitioner No. 1) to discharge his duties as Sheet Writer/Weighment Clerk in the Mills and pay his wages admissible under the Notification implementing the recommendations of the Wage Board. 3. 3. The petitioner Deena Nath Yadav was appointed dak-runner in the Mills for the first time in the crushing season 1988-89 and he discharged his duties as such for the whole of the season 1988-89 including the period during the second half of the season. He also worked in the same capacity in the subsequent crushing seasons 1980-90 and 1990-91. His case is that having worked for three consecutive seasons he acquired the status of a seasoned workman and as such is entitled to the benefits and privileges admissible to a seasoned workman under the provisions of the Standing Orders, 1988 and the Notification dated 31-1-1991 referred to here-in-before. He has come up to this Court under Article 226 of the constitution seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit him to resume his duties as permanent seasonal dak-runner' in the Mills and pay his wages since 8-11-1991 in unskilled grade specified in the Notification dated 31-1-1991. 4. The petitioner Ajai Kumar Singh was appointed sheet Writer/Weighment clerk for the first time in the crushing season 1989-90 and worked in that capacity for the whole of the said season as also in the succeeding season 1990-91 including whole of the second half of the aforesaid season. The petitioner Ajai Kumar Singh is seeking a relief of mandamus directing the respondents to permit him to resume his duties of permanent seasonal Sheet Writer/Weighment Clerk in the Mills and to pay his Wages/salary since 8-1 1-1991 in clerical grade-IV. 5. It is not disputed that the appointment of workmen and service conditions under the Mills are governed by the Standing Orders, 1988 read with Notification dated 31-1-1991 issued by the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 3 (b) of the U P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, implementing the recommendations of the Wage Board constituted by the Government of India. According to the Standing Orders, 1988 a seasonal workman' is one who is engaged only for the crushing season and has completed his probationary period, if any. A temporary workman', within the meaning of the Standing Orders, 1988 means one who is engaged for meeting the temporary or casual requirements. The argument of Sri Shyam Narain. According to the Standing Orders, 1988 a seasonal workman' is one who is engaged only for the crushing season and has completed his probationary period, if any. A temporary workman', within the meaning of the Standing Orders, 1988 means one who is engaged for meeting the temporary or casual requirements. The argument of Sri Shyam Narain. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in each of these writ petitions is that the petitioners worked in the Mills, as aforesaid, in the capacity of seasonal workman, while the argument of Sri A. K. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the Mills, is that each of the petitioner worked in the Mills only as daily rated worker for meeting the temporary and casual requirements in the Mills. The submission made by Sri A. K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing of the respondent Mills cannot be countenanced. As noticed above, Chandra Bhushan Sahi and Dena Nath Yadav worked in the Mills for three consecutive seasons 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 while the petitioner Ajai Kumar Singh worked for two consecutive seasons 1989-90 and 1990-91. The respondents have not produced any material before me showing that the petitioners were appointed to meet any casual/temporary requirements of the Mills. On the other hand the fact that the petitioners Chandra Bhushan Sahi and Deena Nath Yadav worked for three consecutive seasons while the petitioner Ajai Kumar Singh for two consecutive seasons indicates that they worked in the capacity of seasonal workmen. Under the circumstances it is difficult for me to accept the condition of Sri A.K. Mishra that the petitioners worked in the Mills as temporary workmen and not as seasoned workmen. 6. In Writ Petition No. 2056 of 1992 connected with Writ Petition No. 4482 of 1992 decided on 2-12-1992, I have held that the powers of the General Manager in respect of appointments under the Standing Orders, 1988 are not in any manner controlled by the State Government or by the Adhyaksha, U.P. Rajya Chini Nigam and for that reason I have held that the impugned orders dated 12-8-1991, 16-8-1991 are unauthorised and without jurisdiction. The order contained in the letter dated 24-8-1991 issued by the General Manager of the Chini Mills is based on the direction contained in the Government letters dated 18-8-1991, which in my opinion is unauthorised and without any jurisdiction and therefore the direction of the General Manager contained in the letter dated 24-8-1991 too is vitiated due to reason of the fact that it has not been issued by the General Manager in the independent exercise of his powers. It is well settled that exercise of power by an authority is vitiated if it is exercised on the dis-bates or at the behest of a foreign authority. As such the orders impugned in the writ petition No. 4523 of 1992 arc wholly unauthorised and illegal. 7. In view of the above discussion, the writ petitioners Chandra Bhushan Sahi, Deena Nath Yadav and Ajai Kumar Singh having been held by me to be seasonal workmen, are entitled to the benefits and privileges admissible to such workmen under the provisions of the Standing Orders, 1988 and the Notification dated 31-1-1991 referred :to herein before. 8. Before I part with the case, it may be observed that so far as the petitioner Chandra Bhushan Sahi is concerned, it appears that he was successful in the interview held for regularising his appointment but letter of appointment was not issued as alleged in Paragraph 6 of the writ petition. There is no categorical denial in the counter affidavit of the averments made in Paragraph 6 of the writ petition. The argument of Sri A. K. Misra, that the petitioners were not found suitable for being appointed as seasonal workmen cannot be accepted. It may be that the petitioners were not found suitable for permanent employment but that does not' mean that they were not entitled to the benefits and previleges admissible to seasonal workman. 9. In the result the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner Chandra Bhushan Sahi, Deena Nath Yadav and Ajai Kumar Singh as seasonal workman and give them all benefits and privileges admissible to them under the provisions of the Standing Orders, 1988 read with Notification dated 31-1-1991. 10. Copy of this judgment be kept on the file of each of the writ petition concerned.