The appellants have filed a separate application for taking those additional documents Annexures P 18 and P 19 on record.
6823 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition and the writ appeal filed by the appellants herein.
On the basis of the companypromise petition, the award dated 27.04.1995 was passed by the Labour Court, Durg, directing the respondent therein to reinstate the appellants herein.
5508 of 2006 and final order dated 06.11.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the same High Court in W.A. P.R. No.
The said order is under challenge in these appeals.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached the High Court by way of a writ petition.
Despite such voluminous material demonstrating the companytinuous working of the appellants with the respondents, according to the appellants they were dismissed on the ground of failure to establish that they worked for more than 240 days companytinuously in one calendar year.
In view of the said efforts, the respondents once again ordered reinstatement of the appellants on 06.01.2001.
At this stage, respondent No.1 and the appellants filed a joint petition dated 10.01.1995 for companypromise in which respondent No.1 agreed to reinstate the appellants and also to grant seniority and other benefits from the date of their initial appointment that is 05.08.1989.
By the order impugned, the High Court, after pointing out that the appellants were on daily wage basis and have number companypleted 240 days in one calendar year which is the companydition precedent for attracting the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 companyfirmed the order of the Labour Court and dismissed their writ petition.
Heard Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, learned companynsel for the appellants and Mr. Milind Kumar, learned companynsel for the respondents.
Again in 2000, when an attempt was made to remove the appellants arbitrarily, initially it was the High Court which granted status quo in their favour and thereafter the higher authorities intervened and prevented the respondents from victimizing the appellants.
Apart from the above details, the appellants have also pressed into service Annexure P4, the terms and companyditions of companypromise entered into between the appellants workmen and the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bemetara Management.
Since Annexure P4 was pressed into service by the workmen, it is useful to refer the same ANNEXURE P/4 BEFORE THE HONBLE LABOUR COURT, DURG Case No.
These appeals are directed against the final order dated 02.11.2006 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Petition No.
Considering the plight of the workmen, we perused the said Annexures P 18 and P 19 which companytain details such as number of days worked in a month, salary paid by the respondents companymencing from year 1994 ending with 2004.
Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
The documents in Annexures P 18 and P 19 clearly show the number of days on which both the appellants worked.
Brief Facts According to the appellants, on 05.08.1989, they were selected on the temporary post of Nakedar by a duly companystituted Selection Committee on the pay scale determined by the Collector.
At the threat of removal, the appellants approached the Labour Court in 1994.
