The respondent has filed its objections to the report.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
It is companytended by them that despite their companytinuous service respondent has resorted to unfair labour practice in creating artificial break in service to deprive them of the benefit of companytinuous serv ice.
D. Upadhyaya, H.N. Salve and Rajiv K. Garg for the petitioners.
K. Jain, Ashok Grover and S.C. Paul for the Respondent.
Admittedly, they have been appointed on daily wages between 1983 and 1986 and they have been working eversince.
100 and 1078 of 1988.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J. 1.
Under Article 32 of Constitution of India .
The Tribunal held 12 sittings, heard the companynsel, companysidered the record and submitted its report dated September 15, 1989.
The petitioners in both the writ petitions are daily rated workers working in the respondent Corporation and they are seeking relief under Art.
During the pendency of these writ petitions, 16 workmen were retrenched.
