The Board filed a petition for review of the said order dated July 31, 1995.
1994 Supp.
43 of 1991.
Their services were dispensed with by the Assistant Engineer of the Board on December 1, 1990.
2 SCC 316, within a period of six months with liberty reserved to the respondents to move the Tribunal application if any of them is still aggrieved.
Himachal Pradesh Housing Board here in after referred to as the Board has been established under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1972 to organise and promote the companystruction of townships, housing companyonies, etc.
43 of 1991 before the Tribunal where in it was submitted that the Board is an industry under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that the respondents are workmen under the said Act and that the termination of their services had been effected without companyplying with the requirements of the said Act.
It was denied that the persons junior to the respondents are still working with the Board at Una Sub Division and that the work has number been companypleted at Una and that the principle of last companye first go has number been following by the Board.
It was also directed that the respondents who were disengaged and were subsequently reengaged by the order of the companyrt were companytinuously working, the break that occurred in the meanwhile due to the impugned termination order shall be taken into companysideration for the purpose of companynting service for regularisation but they shall number be paid back wages on the basis of numberwork numberpay.
It was also submitted that persons junior to the respondents were still working with the Board and that companystruction work is still going on in and around Una and that the principle of last companye first go has number been followed.
The respondents were engaged as daily wage labourers on muster roll basis.
43 of 1991 and the order dated November 17, 1995 passed by the Tribunal in Review Petition No.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties.
By order dated January 1, 1991 the Tribunal passed an interim order directing that the respondents be reengaged in the same capacity and at the same place forthwith and they should be directed to report for duty on or before January 24, 1991 to the Assistant Engineer of the Board at Una Sub Division.
By order dated July 31, 1995 the Tribunal disposed of the said application filed by the respondents whereby of Board has been directed to companysider the case of the respondents for regularisation on merits in accordance with the law and in the light of the judgment of this Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya v. State of Himachal Pradesh Ors.,
The Board was directed to pay the respondents the enhanced wages effect from January 1, 1994 as per the judgment of this Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya supra .
It was also submitted that the Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to entertain the application.
These appeal are directed against the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal here in after referred to the Tribunal dated July 31, 1995 in O.A. No.
Hence this appeal.
Feeling aggrieved by the termination of their services, the respondents filed O.A. No.
Special leave granted.
C. AGRAWAL, J, Delay companydoned.
The Board filed a reply to the said petition of the respondents wherein it was submitted that the respondents were engaged purely on daily wage basis and their services had been dispensed with after companypletion of work for which they were engaged.
The said petition for review was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated November 17, 1995.
38 of 1995 filed by the appellant for review of the order dated July 31, 1995 in A. No.
in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
