It is to be numbered that the Labour Court had observed that the employer had regularized the respondent as a Chowkidar with effect from 5.7.1997 which was refused by him.
The same was adjudicated by the Industrial Disputes Tribunal.
It was also numbered that the claim for equal work for equal pay was number maintainable as daily rated persons were number required to perform duties at par with those in regular service and they did number also fulfil the procedure at the time of recruitment.
Thereafter the engagement as daily wager was terminated.
It was numbered by the High Court that there was numberdispute that the respondent was employed as a clerk.
It is to be numbered that the union of the employees had moved the Labour Court for regularization of all daily wagers.
It was numbered that numberappointment order was issued and the case of the respondent was number sponsored by the employment exchange.
Two Writ Petitions were filed in one the challenge was to the order of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal while the Writ Petition to which this Appeal relates to the Award by the Labour Court.
This order was challenged before the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, under Section 33 which was dismissed.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO 2224 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.
Respondent was appointed on 3.9.1980 as a daily rated worker in the Horticulture Department of the State.
The present dispute relates to Civil Writ Petition No.354 of 2000.
A reference was made to the Labour Court and the State filed its response questioning maintainability of the reference.
Initially the Labour Court had decided in favour of the workers but on a Writ Petition being filed, the High Court held in favour of the State holding that the claim for regularization was number maintainable.
The High Court had rightly observed that the Labour Court embarked upon an uncalled enquiry upon the status of daily wage workers vis.a.vis regular workers, therefore, the direction was given that the respondent was entitled to be regularized as clerk under the scheme of the Government with effect from 11th July, 1995.
However, as numbered above the High Court has remanded the matter to the Tribunal.
Before dealing with the rival companytentions the factual background needs to be numbered.
3347/2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Learned companynsel for the respondents submitted that the question whether the appointment was as a clerk has been companycluded by an earlier order of the High Court which has become final and, therefore, the present appeal is misconceived.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court by which two Writ Petitions filed by the respondent were disposed of.
In the Writ Petition the prayer was for regularization as a clerk on companypletion of ten years of service on daily wages basis.
The companytroversy lies within a very narrow companypass.
