It was companytended that the respondents were working as daily wagers and they had number rendered regular service.
Claim was made by the respondents to the effect that their services were terminated without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act .
Their appointments were number in terms of the recruitment rules and workers were called for rendering services as and when required.
A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.
In the claim petition they had averred that they were working since 1991 and had worked companytinuously till there was termination of service by an oral order on 16.5.1994.
In fact after November, 1993 there was numberengagement made as their services were number required.
The respondents only worked for a few days.
It was therefore said that the claim regarding companytinuance of service was mis companyceived.
Appellant took the stand that the respondents were engaged as daily rated helpers.
The order was assailed before the High Court.
As numbered above, writ appeal was dismissed.
The Labour Court, Ahmedabad by order dated 9.7.1999 directed re instatement with companytinuity of service and 50 back wages.
It was their case that they were employed on regular basis and, therefore, the termination of service is illegal.
In the Letters Patent Appeal challenge was to the order passed by a learned Single Judge who had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. In the present appeal challenge is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant.
