JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri S.B. Singh holding brief on behalf of Sri B.L. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioners stated that he does not press his relief regarding regularisation and, therefore, to that extent the writ petition be dismissed as not pressed. He further states that he has been instructed to press this petition only so far as the question of retaining allowance is concerned. 3. The impugned order dated 15/16.9.2006 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) has been passed by the Managing Director, U.P. State Sugar Corporation and Cane Development Corporation Ltd. Unit Shahganj, Jaunpur rejecting the claim of petitioners for regularisation as well as retaining allowance. Since the relief with respect to regularisation has not been pressed, this Court is not considering the correctness of the impugned order, in so far as regularisation has been denied and is confining the scrutiny thereof only to the extent of retaining allowance. The respondent No. 1 has rejected the claim of petitioners for retaining allowance by observing that they have worked only for 30-40 days in the crushing season of the concerned year and, therefore, in accordance with the Standing Orders, are not entitled for retaining allowance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Para K of the Standing Orders covering the conditions governing employment of seasonal workmen in Sugar Factories in State of U.P. which reads as under : “K. Special Conditions Governing Employment of Seasonal Workmen 1. A seasonal workman who has worked or, but for illness or any other unavoidable cause, would have worked under a factory during the whole of the second half of the last preceding season shall be employed by the factory in the current season and shall be entitled to get retaining allowance provided he joins the current season and works for at least one month. The payment of retaining allowance shall be made within two months of the date of the commencement of the season. Explanation.—Unauthorised absence during the second half of the last preceding season of a workman who has not been validly dismissed under these Standing Orders and of a workman who has been re-employed by the management in the current season, shall be deemed to have been condoned by the management. 2. Explanation.—Unauthorised absence during the second half of the last preceding season of a workman who has not been validly dismissed under these Standing Orders and of a workman who has been re-employed by the management in the current season, shall be deemed to have been condoned by the management. 2. Every seasonal workman who worked during the last season shall be put up on his old job whether he was in the ‘R’ shift or in any of the usual shifts. However, if the exigencies of work so require, the management may transfer a workman from one job to another or from one shift to another including the ‘R’ shift, so however, that the number of workmen so transferred does not exceed five per cent of total number of the employers of the factory and that the wages and status of such workman is not affected in any way. 3. A seasonal workman, who is a retainer shall be liable to be called on duty at any time in the off season and if he does not report for duty within ten days, he shall lose his retaining allowance for the period for which he was called for duty. 4. Where owing to trade reasons or other reasons necessary for a bona fide Law Off, as given in Standing Order ‘J’ it becomes necessary for a factory so to do, it may discharge the seasonal workman before the close of the season with the previous permission of the State Labour Commissioner if he so directs Additional Labour Commissioner or Regional Additional/Deputy Labour Commissioner of the area after paying such compensation to the discharged workman as may be determined by the authority granting the permission.” 5. He submits that requirement under Para K is that the concerned workman ought to have worked only for one month in the crushing season and since the respondents have admitted that the petitioners have worked for 30-40 days, they are entitled for retaining allowance. In support of his above submission reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision in U.P. State Sugar & Cane Development Corporation Ltd. and another v. Styendra Upadhyay, Special Appeal No. 499 of 2005, decided on 16.1.2007. 6. In support of his above submission reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision in U.P. State Sugar & Cane Development Corporation Ltd. and another v. Styendra Upadhyay, Special Appeal No. 499 of 2005, decided on 16.1.2007. 6. However, Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel for the respondents referred to another Standing Order namely, U.P. Payment of Retaining Allowances to Unskilled Seasonal Workmen of Sugar Factories Order, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “S.O., 1972”) and submits that in the present case it is this order which is applicable. 7. The term “sugar factories” has been defined in Clause 2(ii) of S.O., 1972 which means the vacuum pan sugar factories in Uttar Pradesh. The term “workman” has been defined in Clause 2(iii) which says that for the purpose of this order shall be the workman of sugar factories whose work is of a seasonal nature. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are not unskilled seasonal workmen in a sugar factory defined under Clause 2(ii) of the Standing Order, 1972 published in U.P. Gazette Extra, dated 22.7.1972. 8. Clause 3 of the Standing Order, 1972 provides the manner of payment of retaining allowance and Clause 4 lays down eligibility for retaining allowance and read as under : “3. Retaining allowance manner of payment.—All the sugar factories shall pay retaining allowance to each of their workmen for the off-season 1973 and subsequent off-seasons at the rate of 5 per cent of the basic wages and dearness allowances received by him during the previous crushing season in the manner as laid down below— (a) for the whole duration of the off-season, where the duration of the crushing has been one hundred and twenty days or more; or (b) for only four months of the off-season, where the duration of the crushing has been more than ninety days but less than one hundred and twenty days. Note—Duration of the season for the purpose of this Order shall be calculated on the basis of Tariff Commission Formula for cost calculation that is total number of crushing hours divided by 22.” “4. Note—Duration of the season for the purpose of this Order shall be calculated on the basis of Tariff Commission Formula for cost calculation that is total number of crushing hours divided by 22.” “4. Eligibility for retaining allowance.—(i) The above retaining allowance shall be paid to those unskilled seasonal workmen who have or would have worked but, for illness or any other unavoidable cause, in a factory during whole of the second-half of the last season preceding; provided that labour employed by or through contractors shall be excluded for purposes of this order. (ii) The retaining allowance shall be paid only after the workman has worked for at least two months in the concerned factory in the next cane crushing season that is in the season immediately following the off-season in respect of which the retaining allowance is payable.” 9. Sri Nigam thus submits that in view of the above provisions the petitioners having worked for less than two months, are not entitled for retaining allowance. 10. However, after going through both the above orders, this Court finds that Standing Order, 1972 was initially made operative for a period of five years only as is evident from Clause 7 of S.O., 1972 which reads as under : “7. Duration of the order.—This order shall remain in force for a period of five years in the first instance.” 11. The said order thus remain in force for a period of five years in the first instance. Nothing has been placed before this Court that the aforesaid order was extended thereafter and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept that the case of petitioners is governed under S.O., 1972 since the above Standing Order is no longer operative after 1977. 12. Another Standing Order which include Para K and relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners is applicable to seasonal workmen providing special conditions of their employment. It is applicable to all kinds of workmen with the following classification under Para B which reads as under : “B. Classification of Workmen— 1. Workmen shall be classed as— (i) Permanent, (ii) Seasonal, (iii) Temporary, (iv) Probationers, (v) Apprentices, and (vi) Substitutes.” 13. It is applicable to all kinds of workmen with the following classification under Para B which reads as under : “B. Classification of Workmen— 1. Workmen shall be classed as— (i) Permanent, (ii) Seasonal, (iii) Temporary, (iv) Probationers, (v) Apprentices, and (vi) Substitutes.” 13. The word “seasonal workman” is defined in Para B 1(II) and reads as under : “(II) A “seasonal workman” is one who is engaged only for the crushing season : Provided that if he is a retainer, he shall be liable to be called on duty at any time in the off-season and if he refuses to join or does not join, he shall lose his lien as well as his retaining allowance. However, if he submits a satisfactory explanation of his not joining duty, he shall only lose his retaining allowance for the period of his absence.” 14. Sri Nigam could not show any reason as to why the case of the petitioners would not be governed by the said Standing Order in particular Para K thereof. 15. In the absence of any other Standing Order applicable to the workmen, in my view, Para K of the Standing Order would be applicable to the present petitioners. 16. It appears that Para K(1) of the Standing Order was amended subsequently and it has been provided therein that if a seasonal workman has been employed in the current season and works for at least one month, he shall be entitled for retaining allowance. 17. From the order impugned in this writ petition it is evident that the authorities accept that the petitioners have worked for more than one month i.e. 30-40 days in a season. 18. However, learned counsel for the respondents drew my attention to paras 3 and 4 of the impugned order and contended that the authorities have mentioned that the petitioners were casual employees and, therefore, they are not entitled for retaining allowance. 19. From perusal of the Standing Order it is evident that there is no category like “casual” employees or workmen contemplated therein. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute that out of total six categories of workmen provided in Para B, namely, permanent, seasonal, temporary, probationers, apprentices and substitutes, the rest of the five others the seasonal are not applicable to these petitioners. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners were not engaged in a season. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute that out of total six categories of workmen provided in Para B, namely, permanent, seasonal, temporary, probationers, apprentices and substitutes, the rest of the five others the seasonal are not applicable to these petitioners. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners were not engaged in a season. That being so, considering the definition of “seasonal workmen”, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners are “seasonal workmen” and the word ‘casual’ mentioned in the impugned order means “seasonal employee”. 20. Considering the fact that all the conditions mentioned in Para K entitling the petitioners for retaining allowance are not said to be inapplicable to them, in my view the petitioners are entitled for retaining allowance and the case of petitioners is squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Styendra Upadhyay (supra). 21. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order, so far as it relates to payment of retaining allowance to petitioners is concerned, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to pay retaining allowance to the petitioners taking into consideration the period they have worked and by calculating the amount in accordance with Para K of the Standing Orders within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ————