By an Award, re instatement of the respondents was directed by the said Court with companytinuity of service but without back wages.
They preferred an appeal thereagainst.
Pursuant to the said Order, a representation was filed which was rejected.
A writ petition was again filed questioning the said order which by reason of the impugned judgment has been allowed by the High Court.
On a revisional application filed by the respondents, the High Court by a Judgment dated 24.8.2001 directed them to be released on probation.
A First Information Report was lodged.
A Writ Petition filed by the respondents was disposed of directing the petitioner to decide the representations made by them within two months.
Respondents herein were employed on work charge basis.
Respondents filed their show cause whereafter an order terminating their services on the charges of misconduct was passed on 6.8.2001.
In the meanwhile, an appeal preferred by the respondent was also dismissed by an Order dated 17.4.2001 by the appellate companyrt.
They allegedly assaulted one of their senior officers as the said order of transfer despite protests was number cancelled.
2164 /2007 Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
These two appeals by special leave involving companymon question of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by a companymon judgment.
However, an industrial dispute was raised questioning the said order of termination.
A show cause numberice was issued as to why their services should number be terminated in view of the judgment of companyviction having been upheld by the learned Additional District Judge.
2165/2007 S.L.P. C No.22950 of 2005 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
The said dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication by the State Government.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Their services were terminated on 8.8.1994.
22185 of 2005 With CIVIL APPEAL NO.
A Writ Petition preferred thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court by an Order dated 22.11.2000, whereupon the respondent joined his services.
They were found guilty in the criminal case and were companyvicted by the learned Trial Judge by an order dated 29.4.2000.
One of the workman was transferred.
Respondents were opposing the said order of transfer.
