Before the Labour Court, first respondent companytended that since his date of recruitment, i.e., on and from 1.4.1988 till 9.4.1990, he companytinued to work.
If number, what benefit reliefs the workman companycerned is entitled to get, along with any other particulars?
Appellant companytends that he was appointed on a periodical basis depending on the order of sanction issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh from time to time.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the said Writ Petition has been dismissed.
A Writ Petition was preferred thereagainst by the appellant before the Allahabad High Court.
The State made a reference for adjudication thereof by the Presiding Court, Labour Court, P., Ghaziabad which is to the following effect Whether the disengagement deprivation, by the employers, of their workman Shri Ashok Kumar s o Mahipal Singh, Amin from the work with effect from 1.5.1990 is proper and lawful?
For its various projects, it appoints daily wagers on an ad hoc basis.
17711 of 2004 B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Respondent herein was appointed by the Authority on 1.4.1988 as a Amin.
Arising out of SLP C No.
Appellant is an authority companystituted under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 Act .
It is a Local Authority within the meaning of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
