9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation to the Respondent- Corporation and only on the basis of the assurance given by the Respondent Corporation the appellant had not taken any steps to enforce their right through the process of the court. In view of the concurrent finding recorded by both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench in appeal that the appellants were temporarily appointed on daily wages as and when work was available and they were not posted on regular basis against sanctioned post, thus no reason is find any reason and justification to interfere with the orders passed by the two courts. However, the direction for payment of Rs.10,000/- each to the appellants will not compensate the appellants. Hence, the appellants who approached for the conciliatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the Respondent in January 1989 and was terminated in December, 1991. The 5th appellant was appointed as supervisor in March 1989 and his services were terminated in 1991. Four of the appellants approached the Labour Commissioner (Conciliation officer) some time in 2001 and the 5th appellant approached the conciliation officer some time in 2000. When the conciliation failed the dispute was referred to Labour Court for adjudication as to whether the termination of services was illegal. The Labour Court passed an award holding the termination as illegal and directed reinstatement of the appellants. Aggrieved by the said order the Respondent-Corporation moved the High Court by filing writ petitions. The learned Single Judge, after hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conciliation officer was totally unexplained and there is nothing on record to infer that the appellants were continuously approaching the Corporation for their reinstatement in service. The Division Bench, therefore, while dismissing the appeals observed: We also agree with the learned Single Judge that there is another stumbling block in the path of workers/appellants. Admittedly, they were temporary workers doing the job on daily wages, as and when work was available. It is not their case that they were posted on any regular vacant posts, nor it is their case that they had gone through due process of selection. In the light of ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
