9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This case has a checkered history. It started with filing of W.P. No.2206 of 1997 in the High Court by the workmen of the first appellant which ended with the judgment of this Court in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Shramik Sena & Ors. [1999 (6) SCC 439]. In connection with the interpretation of the said judgment two writ petitions were filed. The second of which gave rise to C.A.No.892 of 2001 which was allowed by this Court on January 29, 2001. Purporting to give effect to the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No.2206 of 1997 and in terms of condition (e) therein the appellants intimated to 68 employees through a letter dated April 9, 2001 (which was subsequently corrected as April 10, 2001) that their service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the said judgment, the respondent filed the application for clarification of the judgment. The question that arises for consideration is : whether the impugned order of the High Court is sustainable in law. We have perused the impugned order of the High Court. We are unable to appreciate the approach of the High Court. Even when it was faced with diametrically apposite interpretation of the judgment of this Court, it was expected of the High Court to decide the case (writ petition) on merit according to its own interpretation of the said judgment. Instead the High Court after referring to rival contentions of the parties, in para 3, observed thus: In our view, the right course for the Petitioner will be to approach the Apex Court an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they were purportedly working as the employees of the contractor. Now, in the context of the aforementioned findings recorded (that they are in fact the workmen of the management) and the direction issued by this Court for their regularisation in the service of management that both the parts of condition (e) have to be interpreted. It is difficult to assume that while conferring the benefit of regularisation on the workmen, subject of course to the said conditions, this Court impliedly took away the rights available to the unabsorbed workmen under the I.D. Act. There is nothing in the judgment of this Court in the above-mentioned appeals, to suggest that the status of the workmen who remained unabsorbed for non-fulfillment of conditions (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
