JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri P.M.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Amit Kumar Singh for M/s Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. the employer. Shri Shyam Veer Singh-the employee appeared in person and argued his case. 2. These four writ petitions arise out, of a labour dispute between M/s Sehkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar, and the respondent-employee, who had worked in the society as a seasonal clerk. 3. The Writ Petition No. 4968 of 1999 arises out of an award of the Industrial Tribunal’s dated 26.3.1998, published on 21.9.1998, on a reference made by the State Government to consider whether the termination of the services of workman-Shri Ram Veer Singh son of Shri Ram Sharan, by the employers on 7.10.1994, was legal and proper, and if not, the benefits/relief, which the workman is entitled to receive with other details and dates? 4. The workman alleged that he was employed as a seasonal employee in 1978 and had worked in every season. In the season of 1994-95, which began on 7.10.1994 he was not called for work by the employers inspite of the fact that he had given his joining report on 10.10.1994. He gave a registered notice through his Counsel to which no reply was given by the employer. 5. The employers, in their written statement, alleged that the workman was seasonal clerk. He did not report for joining in the season of 1994-95 (beginning from 21.10.1994 to 12.5.1995). He was given intimation to join the duties. His services were not terminated. He did not turn up for duties and had left the employment. The Sugarcane Services Authority is only a regulatory authority and that the workman is an employee of the cooperative society. 6. The Tribunal relied upon statement of the workman that he was not given any intimation. He gave his joining report Ex.W-1 dated 10.10.1994, which was received by Shri Sandeep, the dispatch clerk but he was not allowed to work on which he sent a notice through his Counsel dated 1.11.1994 (Ex.W-2). He was not employed for the entire season. The sugarcane started arriving in the factory on 6.10.1994. He was not aware whether the mill started functioning from 21.10.1994. He denied that he had left the employment. 7. On behalf of the employer Shri Satyaveer Singh stated on oath that the workman was called by sending a letter to him. He was not employed for the entire season. The sugarcane started arriving in the factory on 6.10.1994. He was not aware whether the mill started functioning from 21.10.1994. He denied that he had left the employment. 7. On behalf of the employer Shri Satyaveer Singh stated on oath that the workman was called by sending a letter to him. All the clerks were sent the intimation. The Secretary does not have the authority to terminate the services of the employees nor the workman’s services were terminated on 7.10.1994. 8. The Tribunal believed the statement of the workman and relying upon Fire Stone Tire & Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen, decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22nd July, 1981, held that even if services of workman have not been terminated, the reference cannot be turned down. The Tribunal held that there was no cogent evidence to hold that the workman was called for seasonal duties, when the season began on 21.10.1994. The employer’s allegations of misconduct and the workman’s involvement in embezzlement was not accepted as a defence. The Tribunal held that if the workman so involved, disciplinary enquiry should have been initiated against him. The Tribunal held that the failure of the employer to give work to the workman on the start of season w.e.f. 7.10.1994 and consequent termination of services was illegal and invalid. It gave an award that the workman be reinstated with continuity in service. The workman was also made entitled to the wages for the season of 1994-95 with other benefits. 9. Notices were issued on the writ petition filed by the employer challenging the award on 10.9.1999 with directions that back wages to the extent of 50% will be deposited with the concerned Industrial Tribunal within two months; a sum equal to the wages payable to the workman from the date of the award till the last preceding month will be paid within two months; and wages at the rate admissible under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the succeeding months shall be paid to the respondent-workman, month by month basis till further orders of the Court. 10. On 4.4.2003 the Court considered the prayer of the workman that the employer is not complying with the terms and conditions of the interim order and discharged the interim order. 10. On 4.4.2003 the Court considered the prayer of the workman that the employer is not complying with the terms and conditions of the interim order and discharged the interim order. The writ petition was dismissed on 4.4.2003 on the ground that the petitioner has not complied with the order dated 10.2.1999 passed in Writ Petition No. 4968 of 1999. The employer filed a Special Leave to Appeal, which was initially admitted and interim order was granted by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Special Leave to Appeal was, thereafter, dismissed on 8th October, 2007 with request to the High Court to decide the matter finally within three months without granting any unnecessary adjournments : “Since this special leave petition has been preferred against an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court rejecting the stay application, we are not inclined to entertain this petition... Since the writ petition is pending before the High Court, we request the High Court to decide the same at an early date preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment.” 11. The Writ Petition No. 11050 of 2001 filed by the employer arises out of order in proceedings under Section 6H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for computing the wages initiated by the workman for the season 1998-99, from 27.11.1998 to 15.6.1999 and season 1999-2000 from 15.10.1999 to 16.6.2000, with interest and bonus directing the employer to pay Rs. 62,964/-. This writ petition was dismissed on 4.4.2003 after hearing the employee in person. A recall application filed on 7th December, 2005, is pending. 12. The Writ Petition No. 75291 of 2005 is filed by the employer against an order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Saharanpur Region dated 18.10.2005, under Section 6H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act computing wages in terms of the order dated 4.4.2003, and directing the employer to pay Rs. 1,36,154/- including the amount of Rs. 26,964.75 as balance of the earlier order for recovery of Rs. 61,964.76. In this writ petition the stay application was rejected on 23.12.2005. 13. The fourth Writ Petition No. 8 of 2007 arises out of another order passed under Section 6H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 26.9.2006 directing the employer to pay Rs. 61,964.76. In this writ petition the stay application was rejected on 23.12.2005. 13. The fourth Writ Petition No. 8 of 2007 arises out of another order passed under Section 6H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 26.9.2006 directing the employer to pay Rs. 1,05,360/- towards wages for the period from 16.7.2003 to 30.9.2005. By an interim order dated 17.1.2007, the recovery was stayed on the ground that in Special Appeal No. 4978/2006, the Supreme Court has passed an interim order to the effect that the petitioner shall not make any further payment to the respondent. 14. Shri P.M.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate submits that the petitioner is a Cooperative Society. The respondent-workman is an employee of the cooperative society, and that his service conditions are regulated by the U.P. Cooperative Societies Service Regulations, 1975. The provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to the employees of a Cooperative Society and that the award of the Industrial Tribunal is without jurisdiction. He has relied upon the judgments in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1997 SC 3657 and R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. and others, 1997 (5) SCC 125 . These judgments have been followed by this Court in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner and others, 2007 (2) ADJ 25 (SC), in which Hon’ble the Supreme Court held : “The general legal principle in interpretation of statutes is that ‘the general Act should lead to the special Act’. Upon this general principle of law, the intention of the U.P. legislature is clear, that the special enactment U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 alone should apply in the matter of employment of Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 to the exclusion of all other Labour Laws. It is a complete code in itself as regards employment in Cooperative Societies and its machinery and provisions. The General Act the UPID Act, 1947 as a whole has and can have no applicability and stands excluded after the enforcement of the UPCS Act.” 15. Shri P.M.N. Singh further submits that the respondent-workman has misled the Court. He has reported and was allowed to join in the next season of the year 1995-96. The General Act the UPID Act, 1947 as a whole has and can have no applicability and stands excluded after the enforcement of the UPCS Act.” 15. Shri P.M.N. Singh further submits that the respondent-workman has misled the Court. He has reported and was allowed to join in the next season of the year 1995-96. There were allegations of financial irregularities against the workman during the period of his work in the year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94, in the payment of cane price made by him to the cane growers. He had committed embezzlement of Rs. 23,177.73. He was suspended and a charge-sheet was served upon him. The Senior Cane Development Officer, Khatauli was appointed as enquiry officer into the matter. In the enquiry the workman was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. The report was submitted on 29.5.1997. A show cause notice was issued on 24.6.1997 and was served upon the workman. He did not give any reply and ultimately the Chairman of the Zila Ganna Sewa Pradhikaran, Muzaffarnagar terminated his services through letter dated 28.7.1997. The workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-5, U.P. and that by award dated 31st October, 2003 it was found that the workman was found guilty by the employer. He did not submit his reply to the show cause notice and that his services were terminated on 28.7.1997. The Tribunal, thereafter, held that the burden to establish his case was on the workman, who had failed to appear and did not adduce any evidence. The services were terminated after due enquiry and thus he is not entitled to any relief. 16. It is surprising that this award dated 31st October, 2003 in Adjudication Case No. 41 of 1999, which shows that the workman was taken back in seasonable employment in the season of 1995-96 and that his services were terminated on the ground of embezzlement, and that the industrial dispute resulted into an award against him was not brought to the notice of the Court either by the employer or the workman. 17. Shri P.M.N. Singh, Sr. 17. Shri P.M.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate appearing for M/s Sehkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd., Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar could not give any valid reason for withholding of the Award dated 31st October 2003, from the Court in the proceedings upto 7th December, 2005, when he filed a recall application in Writ Petition No. 11050 of 2001, and in Special Leave to Appeal, when the matter was taken by the employer to the Supreme Court. In April, 2008 an amendment application was filed in these writ petitions, bringing on record all these facts. The Court finds that the repeated writ petitions filed in the Court without informing that the workman was actually taken back in employment and had worked in the season 1995-96 could be avoided if the matter was contested properly by the employer. There is no mention of this fact in the orders under Section 6H(1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act challenged by the petitioner-employer in the three writ petitions namely Writ Petition No. 11050 of 2001, 75291 of 2005 and 8 of 2007. The Deputy Labour Commissioner has also observed that the employer has not placed full facts before him and had allowed the application under Section 6-H(1). 18. Further I find rather strange that when the Industrial Tribunal had, in the award dated 26th March, 1998 challenged in Writ Petition No. 4968 of 1999, allowed wages only for the season 1994-95, in the successive application under Section 6H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, no defence was taken by the employer that the workman was taken back in seasonal employment in the next crushing season 1995-96, and that his services were terminated on the ground of embezzlement, after a departmental enquiry. In this case the employer has wasted the time of the Court and has allowed the workman, who is also equally guilty of withholding the facts, and in contesting the proceedings for almost 10 long years. 19. Shri Shyamvir Singh-respondent employee, appearing in person in all the writ petitions, submits that the petitioner-society is playing hide and seek with him. The Counsel of the employers did not pursue his case properly and has been absent on almost all the dates. He submits that the society did not allow him to join inspite of the fact that he had reported for seasonal employment on 10.10.1994. The Counsel of the employers did not pursue his case properly and has been absent on almost all the dates. He submits that the society did not allow him to join inspite of the fact that he had reported for seasonal employment on 10.10.1994. He submits that he is not the employee of the society but that his services are under the control of a regulatory body, which is entirely funded by the State Government. Shri Shyamvir Singh has also filed a written submission in which he has stated that he has received the payments in pursuance of directions under Section 6-H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 under challenge in writ petition Nos. 11050 of 2001; 75291 of 2005, and 8 of 2007 and that he has been harassed in running from pillar to post. He has visited Allahabad more than hundred times to pursue his cases. 20. The award dated 26.3.1998 in writ petition No. 4968 of 1999 (the leading case) directed reinstatement and the payment of wages only for the season 1994-95. Both the employer and the employee did not, for the reasons best known to them, inform the Court that the employee was allowed to join in the next crushing season in 1995-96. He was charged with embezzlement and was terminated after departmental enquiry and that he had raised an industrial dispute in Adjudication Case No. 41 of 1999. Even if the dispute was pending in a reference made on 4.3.1999, it was incumbent upon atleast the employer to inform the Court that the respondent-employee was taken back in seasonable employment in the next season and that he was suspended on 3.4.1997 and thereafter terminated on 28.7.1997. This fact was known to the employers when they were contesting the Adjudication Case No. 57 of 1995 decided by Award dated 26.3.1998. The employers did not state in their written statement and in the writ petitions that the employee was taken back in employment and his services were terminated on 28.7.1997. I find that the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar was grossly negligent in pursuing the matter and has withheld relevant facts from this Court (which should have been placed at the first instance in writ petition No. 4968 of 1999). I find that the Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Khatauli, Muzaffarnagar was grossly negligent in pursuing the matter and has withheld relevant facts from this Court (which should have been placed at the first instance in writ petition No. 4968 of 1999). Shri P.M.N. Singh, Senior Advocate tried to explain the circumstances by stating that there was no coordination between the officials of the society, and those who were pursuing the cases in the High Court. He has offered apologies to the Court. 21. The instrumentalities of the State are the largest litigants in the Court. They are not serious in pursuing the litigation and very often the employee and the staff of these agencies do not have coordination with the employees pursuing the litigation and their Counsels. These four writ petitions are classic example of such negligence. 22. In the present case, it cannot be said that the lack of coordination and withholding of facts by the employer have made the employee to suffer any hardship, as the employee was also guilty of withholding the facts from the Court. He did not disclose to the Industrial Tribunal in Adjudication Case No. 57 of 1995 that he was taken back in the next crushing season 1995-96 and his services were terminated. He kept on filing applications under Section 6-H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and realising the amounts awarded to him for subsequent years. He was not entitled to the wages of the period after crushing season 1994-95. He is as such not entitled to any special damages from the employer. 23. In the result Writ Petition No. 4968 of 1999 is allowed and the award of the Industrial Tribunal in Adjudication Case No. 57 of 1995 dated 26.3.1998, published on 21.9.1998 is set aside only to the extent that it directs the reinstatement of the employee in service. The application for recalling the order dated 4.4.2003 in Writ Petition No. 11050 of 2001 is allowed. The Writ Petition No. 11050 of 2001 is restored to its original number and is allowed. The order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner in proceedings under Section 6-H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is set aside. The Writ Petition No. 75291 of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 8 of 2007 are also allowed. The Writ Petition No. 11050 of 2001 is restored to its original number and is allowed. The order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner in proceedings under Section 6-H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is set aside. The Writ Petition No. 75291 of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 8 of 2007 are also allowed. The orders of the Deputy Labour Commissioner dated 18.10.2005, under Section 6-H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and the orders dated 26.9.2006 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 6-H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are set aside. 24. The employee in all these writ petitions has received some payments in terms of the directions issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under Section 6-H (1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The conduct of the employer in withholding necessary facts from this Court and perpetrating unnecessary litigations must be discouraged. In the circumstances, the Court directs that the respondent-employee shall be allowed to keep the amount, which is received from the employer in pursuance of the directions under Section 6-H (1) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These amounts will be retained by him as damages. The petitioner-employer shall not make any recovery of these amounts from the respondent-employee. ————