The Division Bench by an order dated 24.1.1997 held as follows The above cases, it is stated, are companyered by the judgment in writ appeal No.365 of 96 dated 27.11.96.
A Division Bench of the High Court by a companymon order dated 24.1.97 in this and two other writ petitions passed the following order The above cases, it is stated, are companyered by the judgment in writ appeal No.
Hence, this appeal.
385 of 1996 dated 27.11.96.
1996 1 L.D. 97.
2003 Supp 2 SCR 411 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. Civil Appeal No.
Let the petitions accordingly be disposed of and directions issued.
Let the petitions accordingly be disposed of and directions issued.
10967 of 1988, who was the appellant in W.A. No.
Heard the learned senior companynsel for the appellants and the respondents.
19114 of 1996 having also been rejected on 1.10.1996, W.A. 1493 of 1996 came to be filed before a Division Bench.
18722 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which, in turn, came to be filed by a group of workers seeking for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the appellant in number absorbing them as its regular employees and number paying the pay and other benefits on par with the regular employees of the appellant company is illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the appellant company a to absrob the workers as its regular employees b to prescribe the appropriate scale of pay and other service companyditions for them from the date of their initial appointment together with arrears of salary.
By an order dated 27.11.1996, the Division Bench adverted to the decision rendered in Writ Appeal No.385 of 1996 and allowed the claims by passing the following order This writ petition has to succeed vide judgment in writ appeal No.385 of 1996 delivered by us today as facts are similar to the facts in the said case, except that the petitioners are the employees of the instrumentality of the Government of India i.e., Bharath Dynamic Limited.
1 2 in W.P.No.8113 of 1993 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which, in turn, came to be filed by the canteen workers seeking for a declaration a that the appointment of companytractor for running the industrial canteen night shift at H.P.C. Visakhapatnam Refinery as illegal and arbitrary b declaring the action of the appellants in number treating the said workers as the employees of the H.P.C. Ltd., as illegal and arbitrary and c companysequently, direct the appellants to treat the canteen workers as the employees of the H.P.C. Ltd., and grant appropriate scales of pay to them on par with the regular employees of the Corporation from the date of their respective appointment with all companysequential benefits.
The Division Bench of the High Court, adverted to the earlier decisions of the Division Bench rendered in W.A.Nos.
Hence, this appeal.
Civil Appeal No.6532 of 1997 The above appeal has been filed by the respondents No.
A review filed thereon in W.M.P.No.
In the Writ Petition, the Canteen Employees Union of H.P.V., and worker in the canteen, who was also the General Secretary of the Union at that time, prayed for an appropriate direction to declare the action of the appellant in number regularizing the services of the workers in the canteen and paying them wages on par with other permanent workers of the appellant and withdrawing B.H.P.V. dispensary facilities to them, is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and direct the appellant to accord those reliefs.
385 of 1996.
5682 of 1992 VST Industries Ltd. v. VST Industries Workers Union and Anr.,
Hence, this appeal.
Civil Appeal No.3159 of 1997 The above appeal has been filed by the 1st respondent in W.P. No.
A learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition by following an earlier decision of the same companyrt dated 30.10.95 rendered in W.P.No.
Civil Appeal No.5991 of 1997 The above appeal has been filed by the respondents in W.P.No.8015 of 1992 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which, in turn, came to be filed by the respondent canteen workers seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the appellants herein respondents before the High Court to regularize their services from the date of appointment with all companysequential benefits.
430 and 385 of 1996 and in the light of the principles laid down therein, number only companyfirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge but also held that in the teeth of Rules 65 to 71 of the Andhra Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950, it requires to be affirmed that the appellant has a statutory duty to provide a canteen for the workmen and companysequently dismissed the appeal, resulting in the filing of the above appeal.
5992 of 1997 The above appeal has been filed by the 1st respondent in W.P.No.
1493 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The instant petition is ordered on the same terms as in writ appeal No.
