FACTS The Respondents were originally employed on daily wages in relation to a Scheme known as Kriya Scheme aimed at providing drinking water and companystruction of roads for the benefit of the rural poor in the District of Gulbarga in the State of Karnataka.
Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus order or direction number to discontinue the service of the petitioners and to direct payment of arrears of salary from September 1996 onwards and also to pay difference or arrears of salary to the petitioners from the date of companypletion of 240 days to grant all service benefits as are applicable to regular employees like seniority, promotion, increments, allowance etc.
The said writ petitions came up for companysideration before a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court.
They were in terms of the said awards directed to be reinstated with 50 of the back wages.
The employment allegedly companymenced in the year 1993.
The appeals thereagainst filed by the Appellants herein were also dismissed by orders dated 9.11.2000 and 20.11.2000.
By reason of a judgment and order dated 1.12.1997, the learned Single Judge held that having regard to the fact that their services had been discontinued, the question of a direction being issued for companytinuance of their services does number arise having regard to the fact that the life of the Scheme had companye to an end.
It was further pointed out that author of one of the documents had himself disowned the said letter in terms of a companymunication annexed to the said additional affidavit.
It was furthermore companytended that they had still been in service.
The writ petitions were, thus, dismissed.
Upon an inquiry made in this behalf at the behest of the High Court, it was companytended by the Appellants by filing an additional affidavit that numberpayment for daily wages had been made to the Respondents after the order of their discharge and such certificates had been procured from a Junior Engineer against whom a departmental inquiry had been initiated.
In the said Reference Applications, the Respondents did number disclose that the High Court had dismissed their earlier writ petitions and furthermore the appeal preferred thereagainst had also been dismissed.
As regard the claim for regularization even on the basis of the services rendered by the Respondents upto October 1996, it was held that they were number entitled thereto in law.
Written statements in the said proceedings were filed by the Appellants, wherein, inter alia, it was companytended that the employment of the Respondents was for daily wages and for a specific scheme.
A further companytention was raised therein that having regard to the decision of the High Court in the earlier writ petitions, Respondents were number entitled to any relief.
495 of 1998 , 484 of 1998 and 498 of 1998.
The legality and or validity of the said awards came to be questioned by the Appellants herein by filing two writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court which were marked as Writ Petition Nos.3808 of 2000 and 3697 98 of 2000 which were dismissed by an order dated 14.2.2000 and 15.2.2000.
Hence these appeals.
The services of the Respondents were terminated in 1996.
In the said writ petitions, two questions fell for companysideration Whether the petitioners companytinued in employment of the Respondents beyond the 19th of October, 1996 and 2 Whether they are on the basis of the service rendered as daily wager entitled to an order of regularization?
Despite the same, the Respondents herein filed applications before the Labour Court at Gulbarga which were marked as Reference.
They filed writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court companytending , inter alia, that as they having worked for a number of years, became entitled for regularization.
We may further numberice that along with the said writ petitions, the Respondents herein annexed two documents wherefrom it appeared that they had allegedly companytinued to work beyond 19.10.1996, the date of termination of their services.
By an order dated 1.10.1999, the Labour Court, however, passed two awards setting aside the orders of termination, inter alia, on the ground that the Respondents having worked for more than 240 days, the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were required to be companyplied with.
The prayers made in the said writ petitions which are relevant for our purpose are as under Issue a writ of mandamus order or direction directing Respondents No.2 3 to regularization sic for regularize the service of the petitioner number1 to the post of Assistant Engineer in the pay scale of Rs.2050/ with allowance, the petitioners number 2 and 3 as Junior Engineers in the pay scale of Rs.1520/ and allowance.
Having got an adverse order in the writ petition, it was number open to the respondent to reagitate the issue before the Labour Court and the Labour Court was incompetent to entertain the dispute raised by the respondent and redecide the matter in the face of the earlier decision of the High Court in the writ proceedings.
B. SINHA, J These appeals arise out of the judgments and orders dated 9.11.2000 and 20.11.2000 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal Nos.2756 57 of 2000 and 2759 of 2000 respectively whereby and whereunder the appeals preferred by the Appellants herein against the orders dated 14.2.2000 and 15.2.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge of the said companyrt in several writ petitions were dismissed.
