Holding

The amendment of the definition of "crushing season" altered the wages/period of payment and therefore required notice under Section 4‑1 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which was not given, rendering the orders invalid.

Summary

The appellant, a trade union of seasonal workers employed by a cooperative cane development union, challenged an order by the Cane Commissioner that redefined "crushing season" and thereby altered the period for which wages were payable. The amendment changed the definition from a fixed calendar period (1 Oct to 15 July) to a variable period based on actual crushing operations, affecting employment length and wages of seasonal workers. The issue was whether such a change constituted a change in conditions of service requiring notice under Section 4‑1 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1956, and whether the Commissioner had authority to amend the service regulations under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The Supreme Court held that the redefinition affected wages and thus fell within Clause 1 of the Third Schedule, making notice mandatory, which was not given. Consequently, the orders of the Cane Commissioner were set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether notice under Section 4‑1 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1956 (or Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act) is required before altering the definition of "crushing season" that impacts wages and period of employment.
Whether the Cane Commissioner is empowered to frame and amend service regulations under Section 122 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.

Legislation cited

U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965s. 122

Subjects

labour lawindustrial disputesnotice of changeservice conditionscooperative societiesseasonal workerscrushing seasonU.P. Industrial Disputes ActU.P. Cooperative Societies Act

Judgment

(2008) 6 S.C.R. 253

U.P.C.U.E.F. LTD. A
v.
CANE COMMISSIONER AND R.C.C.S. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2727 of 2008)
APRIL 10, 2008
B
i
[TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

Labour Laws - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1956 - s.4-1
rlw Third Schedule - Change in conditions of service - Notice
of change - Cooperative Cane Development Unions c
established in the State of U.P. - Respondent No.1-Cane
Commissioner passed order amending the definition of
"crushing season" as provided in the Cane Cooperative
Service Regulations - Amendment challenged by Appel/ant-
trade union 9n ground that thereby length of employment as D
)
well as wages of the seasonal workmen employed in
Respondent No.4-Cane Development Union was adversely
affected - Held: Change in definition of "crushing season"
amounted to change of service conditions for which notice was
required to be given to concerned workmen - Order passed
by Respondent No.1-Cane Commissioner set aside since no E
notice was given to concerned workmen in compliance with
s.4-1 rlw Third Schedule of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act
before effecting the change - U. P. Cane Cooperative Service
Regulations, 1975 - Regn 2(n).
F
Cooperative Cane Development Unions (Garlna
Sahkari Vikas Samitis) were established in the State of Uttar
Pradesh for purchase of sugar from its sugar growing ·
members for supply to various sugar factories. The U.P.
Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975 provided for G
recruitment, emoluments, terms and conditions of service
etc. of the permanent as well as seasonal employees of
such Cooperative Cane Development Unions.
Respondent No1-Cane Commissioner of
253 H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A Cooperative Cane Societies, Uttar Pradesh passed an
order amending the definition of "crushing season" as
provided in Regulation 2(n) of the said Service
Regulations. Appellant, registered Trade Union of the
workmen employed by Respondent No. 4- Cooperative
B Cane Development Union, filed writ petition challenging
the said amendment on the ground that thereby the length
of employment as well as wages of the seasonal workmen
was adversely affected. High Court dismissed the petition.
In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the
C appellant that the change of the definition of "crushing
season" without any reasonable and justifiable cause
was not only arbitrary but also amounted to change of
service conditions of the employees to their detriment,
which was not permissible under law and in any case,
D the same could not have been done without observing
the principles of natural justice and that the action of
Respondent No.1-Cane Commissioner was contrary to
the provisions of s.4-1 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1956 inasmuch as no notice of change was given to the
E employees.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is clear from s.4-1 of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1956 that if any change is required to be
F made in the conditions of service applicable to any
workman in respect of any matter specified in the Third
Schedule, the same can only be done by notice to the
workman who would be affected by such change. The
Third Schedule clearly deals with Conditions of Service
G for change of which notice is to be given. Clause 1 of these
Conditions in the Third Schedule would clearly indicate
that if any change is required to be made in the Wages
including the period and mode of payment of workmen,
the same can only be done after service of notice to the
H workmen. [Para 9] [260-E-G]
U.P.C.U.E.F. LTD. v. CANE COMMISSIONER AND 255
R.C.C.S. AND ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
....
1.2. As per the earlier definition, "crushing season" A
meant the period beginning on the 1st of October in any
year and ending on 15th of July next following. By virtue
of the amended definition, "crushing season" means the
period commencing from the date when the crushing of
sugarcane in the concerned sugar facto_ries commences B
till the date when crushing ends. This change in the
definition of "crushing season" would affect the period
for which the employees are to be paid the wages and
this change is squarely covered by Clause 1 of the Third
Schedule.Therefore, it ·was incumbent upon the C
Respondent No.1-Cane Commissioner to serve a notice
upon the appellant before effecting any change in the
definition of "Crushing Season". Respondent No.1-Cane
Commissioner could not have passed the impugned
order without giving any notice in compliance with s.4-1
) read with the Third Schedule of the U.P. Industrial Disputes D
Act. [Paras 9, 1O] [261-8, C, D, E]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2727
of 2008
From the final Order dated 26.4.2005 of the High Court of E
Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 33014/1993
Brijender Chahar, Abhinav Jain, Jyoti Chahar, J.S. Malik
and Vi nay Garg for the Appellant.
• S.G. Hasnain, Vishnu Sharma, Prashant Kumar, Manoj K. F
Dwivedi and Gunnam Venkateswara Rao for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment G
and order dated 25th of April, 2005 of the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad in CMWP No. 33014 of 1993 dismissing the writ
petition of the appellant filed against the orders dated 17th of
May, 1993 and 14th of July, 1993 passed by the Cane
Commissioner and Registrar Cooperative Cane Societies U .P., H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A Lucknow (respondent No. 1) and the Special Secretary, Sahkari
Ganna Vikas Samiti (respondent No.3) respectively.
3. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal are
as under.

B The appellant is a registered Trade Union of the workmen
{
employed by Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd, Shamli,
respondent no. 4 herein. Before the High Court, one Late Shri.
Niranjan Singh was the writ petitioner No. 2 along with the
appellant and was a permanent seasonal clerk of the respondent
c No. 4 but he expired during the pendency of the writ petition.
U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975 (in
short "the Service Regulations, 1975") were framed under
section 122 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 which
superseded the Cane Cooperative Service Rules, 1963. These
D regulations provide for the recruitment, emoluments, terms and
conditions of service etc. of the employees, permanent as well
as seasonal, of the Cooperative Cane Development Union or
Ganna Sahkari Vikas Samitis established in the State of UP
for purchase of sugar from its sugar growing members for supply
E to various sugar factories. Under the Service Regulations, 1975,
"Crushing Season" was defined in Regulation 2(n) as follows:
"Crushing season means, the period as defined in UP.
Sugarcane (Regulation of Supplies and Purchase) Act,
1953, U. P. Act No. XXIV of 1953"
F
Section 2(i) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supplies
and Purchase) Act, 1953 in turn defines 'Crushing Season' as
•
follows:
"Crushing Season means the period beginning on the
G 1st October in any year and ending on 15th July next
following."
The Cane Commissioner of Cooperative Cane Societies,
Uttar Pradesh by an order dated 17th of May, 1993 replaced
the definition of "Crushing Season" as provided in the Service
H
U.P.C.U.E.F. LTD. v. CANE COMMISSIONER AND 257
R.C.C.S. AND ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

Regulations, 1975 with the following definition: - A
"Crushing season means the period commencing from ·
the date when the crushing of sugarcane in concerned
sugar factories commences till the date when crushing
ends."
B
It is the case of the appellant that due to this amendment,
the length of the employment of the seasonal workmen and also
their wages was affected. Further, all the seasonal workmen
were placed in the same position as prior to 1975 regulations,
which made their employment at the whims and fancies of the c
employer exposing the workmen to all vulnerable tactics of the
employer. Since a lot of work is required to be done before
actual crushing starts and comes to an end, like management
of movement of sugarcane, extension of loans to the cane
growers, supply of fertilizers, recovery of loans, etc. hence
D ,
employment of seasonal workers could not be made limited to
)
the crushing period only. On these grounds, the appellant filed a
writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the
order dated 17th of May, 1993 and the order dated 14th of July,
1993 whereby the services of Late Shri. Niranjan Singh (writ E
petitioner no. 2 before the High Court) were terminated. The
High court, as noted herein earlier, rejected the writ petition of
the appellant. It is this order of the High Court, which is impugned
in this appeal in respect of which leave has already been
granted.
F
4. The main questions. that need to be decided in this
appeal are: -
i) Whether it was mandatory to give notice under
Section 4-1 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1956
or Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1956 G
before passing the order dated 14th of July, 1993
altering the conditions of service of the appellant on
the basis of the order dated 17th of May, 1993.
ii) Whether the respondent no. 1 is vested with the power H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.

A to frame regulations on service conditions and further
..
the power to amend them under Section 122 of the
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965.
5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant Mr.
Brijender Chahar vehemently argued before us that the change
B of the definition of "Crushing Season" without any reasonable l
and justifiable cause is not only arbitrary but also amounts to
change of service conditions of the employees to their detriment,
which is not permissible under law and in any case, the same
could not be done without observing the principles of natural
C justice. The learned senior counsel further contended before us
that the action of the Cane Commissioner was contrary to the
provisions of Section 4-1 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1956
inasmuch as no notice of change was given to the employees.
The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
o contended that mere change in the definition of the term
"Crushing Season" in the Service Regulations, 1975 would not
in any manner adversely affect the appellant because earlier
also, there had been retention in service only during the period
for which the sugar factory had actually operated and in no
E season were they retained in service after expiry of the aforesaid
period.
6. While dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, the
High Court made the following findings: -
"It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no
F employer can change the service condition applicable to
the workmen as is specified in the Third Schedule. The
Court has perused the Third Schedule and after perusal
of the Third Schedule it is clear that it deals regarding
mode of payment, contribution paid or payable by the
G employer, compulsory and other allowances, hours of work
and rest intervals, leave, starting alteration or
discontinuance of shift working, classification by grades,
withdrawal or privilege, introduction of new rules of
discipline, rationalization or improvement of plant, any
H increase or reduction in number of persons employed.
U.P.C.U.E.·F. LTD. v. CANE COMMISSIONER AND 259
R.C.C.S. AND ORS. [T~RUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

The Third Schedule does not talk regarding the change of A
service condition. Therefore, in my view, the only contention
raised on behalf of the petitioner is not applicable. The
order of the respondent in any way is not covered under
the provisions of 4-1 and the Third Schedule. As no further
point has been argued and the amendment does not call B
for any change in the service conditions of the petitioner
therefore, I am of the view as submitted by the petitioner
that no notice was required."
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after examining the judgment of the High Court and other C
materials on record including the relevant provisions, as
mentioned herein earlier, we are of the view that this appeal
deserves to be allowed and the order of the High court set aside
for the reasons stated hereinafter.
D
8. Let us deal with the first question, as noted herein earlier,
""" for our consideration. Section 4-1 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act provides for Notice of Change' and reads as under: -
"4-1 Notice of Change - No employer who proposes to
effect any change in the conditions of service applicable E
to any workmen in respect of any matter specified in the
Third Schedule, shall effect such change -
a) without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by
such change a notice in the prescribed manner of
the nature of the change proposed to be effected; or F
...
b) within twenty-one days of giving such notice."
The Third Schedule provides as under: -
"The Third Schedule G
(See Section 4-1)
:). CONDITIONS OF SERVICE FOR CHANGE OF WHICH
NOTICE IS TO BE GIVEN
1. Wages including the period .and mode of payment. H

1
(
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 6 S.C.R.

A 2. .................................................. .

3. ···················································
4. ...................................................
5................................................... .
B
6. ............................... :.................. .
7................................................... .
8. .................................................. .

c 9. ···················································
10. ...................................................
11 .................................................... Omitted (because not·
required in this case)."
D
9. We have examined Section 4-1 of the U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1956 which provides for 'Notice of Change' and
the 'Third Schedule'. From their careful examination, we are
unable "to agree with the High Court that the Third Schedule does
E not spedk about the change of service conditions of the
workmen. It is clear from Section 4-1 that if any change is required
to be made in the conditions of service applicable to any
workman ih respect of any matter specified in the Third
Schedule, the same can only be done by notice to the workman
who would be affected by such change. The Third Schedule
F clearly deals with Conditions of Service for change of which
notice is to be given. Clause 1 of these Conditions in the Third
Schedule would clearly indicate that if any change is required
to be made in the Wages including the period and mode of
payment of workmen, the same can only be done after service
G of notice to the workmen. Therefore, from a plain reading of the
Third Schedule, it is clear that it enumerates the conditions of
service for change of which notice has to be served upon the
workmen. In this view of the matter, the finding of the High court
that the Third Schedule does not talk about the change of service
H conditions is unfounded and not acceptable. For this reason, a
U.P.C.U.E.F LTD. v. CANE COMMISSIONER AND 261
R.C.C.S. AND ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]

....~ notice ought to, have been served upon the employees before A
effecting any chadge in their conditions of service. Let us now
examine if the change effected by the Cane Commissioner in
the definition of "Crushing Season" would have any impact on
the conditions of service of the appellant. Admittedly, as per the
earlier definition, as noted herein earlier, "Crushing Season" B
meant the period beginning on the 1st of October in any year
.. and ending on 15th of July next following. By virtue of the amended
definition, "Crushing Season" means the period commencing
from the date when the crushing of sugarcane in the concerned
sugar factories commences till the date when crushing ends. In c
our view, this change in the definition of "Crushing Season" would
affect the period for which the employees are to be paid the
wages and this change is squarely covered by Clause 1 of the
Third Schedule as noted herein earlier. Therefore, in our view, it
was incumbent upon the Cane Commissioner to serve a notice
D
upon the appellant before effecting any change in the definition
of "Crushing Season".
10. In view of our discussions made hereinabove, we,
therefore, hold that the orders dated 17th of May, 1993 and 14th
of July, 1993 could not have been passed without giving any E
notice in compliance with Section 4-1 read with the Third
Schedule of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1956, as mentioned
herein earlier. In view of our finding made hereinabove, it is,
therefore, not necessary to deal with Question No. 2 regarding
power of respondent No.1 to frame and amend regulations under F
.- Section 122 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 .
11. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment of
the High Court is set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant
is allowed to the extent indicated above. The· appeal is thus
allowed without any order as to costs. However, it would be open G
to the respondent to amend the definition of"Crushing Season"
in accordance with law.
l
8.8.B. Appeal allowed.
H