P.Sathasivam, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THESE appeals are directed against the final order dated 02.11.2006 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Petition No. 5508 of 2006 and final order dated 06.11.2007 passed by the Division Bench of the same High Court in W.A. (P.R.) No. 6823 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition and the writ appeal filed by the appellants herein. Brief Facts: According to the appellants, on 05.08.1989, they were selected on the temporary post of Nakedar by a duly constituted Selection Committee on the pay-scale determined by the Collector. At the threat of removal, the appellants approached the Labour Court in 1994. At this stage, respondent No.1 and the appellants filed a joint petition dated 10.01.1995 for compromise in which respondent No.1 agreed to reinstate the appellants and also to grant seniority and other benefits from the date of their initial appointment that is 05.08.1989. On the basis of the compromise petition, the award dated 27.04.1995 was passed by the Labour Court, Durg, directing the respondent-therein to reinstate the appellants herein. Again in 2000, when an attempt was made to remove the appellants arbitrarily, initially it was the High Court which granted status quo in their favour and thereafter the higher authorities intervened and prevented the respondents from victimizing the appellants. In view of the said efforts, the respondents once again ordered reinstatement of the appellants on 06.01.2001. Despite such voluminous material demonstrating the continuous working of the appellants with the respondents, according to the appellants they were dismissed on the ground of failure to establish that they worked for more than 240 days continuously in one calendar year. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. By the order impugned, the High Court, after pointing out that the appellants were on daily wage basis and have not completed 240 days in one calendar year which is the condition precedent for attracting the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confirmed the order of the Labour Court and dismissed their writ petition. The said order is under challenge in these appeals.
(3.) HEARD Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Milind Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-workmen fairly stated that because of the ignorance though the appellants were having adequate materials in the form of documents and communications from the respondents/employer, they were not properly placed the same before the Labour Court in support of their claim for reinstatement. He also submitted that even before the High Court these additional documents were not placed for consideration and requested this Court to consider the same in order to render substantial justice to the workmen. The appellants have filed a separate application for taking those additional documents Annexures P-18 and P-19 on record. Considering the plight of the workmen, we perused the said Annexures P-18 and P-19 which contain details such as number of days worked in a month, salary paid by the respondents commencing from year 1994 ending with 2004. The documents in Annexures P-18 and P-19 clearly show the number of days on which both the appellants worked.;