All the appellants were employed with the Respondent Corporation on daily wages or on temporary basis.
Accordingly, the award was quashed with a direction to the Respondent Corporation to pay Rs.10,000/ each to the appellants by way of companypensation.
The 5th appellant was appointed as supervisor in March 1989 and his services were terminated in 1991.
It was further numbericed that delay in approaching the companyciliation officer was totally unexplained and there is numberhing on record to infer that the appellants were companytinuously approaching the Corporation for their reinstatement in service.
The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the award passed by the Labour Court.
Similarly, the 4th appellant was engaged as casual labourer in Building Department of the Respondent in January 1989 and was terminated in December, 1991.
The learned Single Judge numbericed that out of five, four appellants approached the Labour Commissioner for companyciliation after 8 to 10 years from the date of termination of service.
When the companyciliation failed the dispute was referred to Labour Court for adjudication as to whether the termination of services was illegal.
All the five appellants dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge filed Letters Patent Appeals which were numbered as 140 144 of 2007.
In the light of ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Honble the Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1991, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that numberremedy is available to the workers since they were number the workers appointed on regular vacant posts by due process of selection.
The Labour Court passed an award holding the termination as illegal and directed reinstatement of the appellants.
Four of the appellants approached the Labour Commissioner Conciliation officer some time in 2001 and the 5th appellant approached the companyciliation officer some time in 2000.
However, the Respondent Corporation was directed to pay Rs.10,000/ each to the appellants by way of companypensation.
Only the 5th appellant approached the Labour Commissioner after three years and ten months from the date of termination of service.
The 3rd appellant was appointed as a labourer in Water Supply Department of Respondent Corporation, some time in July 1996 and was terminated in May, 1997.
Aggrieved by the said order the Respondent Corporation moved the High Court by filing writ petitions.
Second appellant was appointed as casual labour in Building Department of the Corporation in March 1980 and his services were terminated in 1992.
The Division Bench numbericed the undisputed facts that all the appellants were temporarily employed on daily wages or temporary basis, and that their services were terminated after they worked for five years.
One of the appellant was engaged as daily companylie in Construction Department of the Corporation, some time in 1989 and his services were terminated after two years in 1991.
Y. Eqbal, J. Leave granted.
The appellants have preferred these appeals against the companymon judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad in Letters Patent Appeals arising out of Writ Petitions whereby the order passed by the Learned Single Judge quashing the award passed by the Labour Court, Jalagaon, has been affirmed.
The facts of the case lie in a narrow companypass.
