- (1.)C. A. No. 3221 of 2000
The respondent brought a suit on the basis of certain instructions issued by the appellant-Board for absorption of daily-wage workers to work-charged establishment who had completed 500 days of service. While the trial Court did not have the benefit of the circular, the appellate Court did have the benefit of that circular dated 19-9-1991. The trial Court, however, decreed the suit.

(2.)In the appeal, the appellate Court noticed that the respondent in each of these cases had completed 500 days as daily-wage worker by the cut-off date, which had been extended from time to time. Thus it was found that the respondent in each of the cases was entitled to be absorbed as work-charged worker. But the appellant-Board had not considered his case while passing the order impugned in the suit and, therefore, he was entitled to be absorbed as work-charged worker by conversion from daily wage worker to the work-charged establishment.
(3.)The matter was carried in second appeal to the High Court. The principal contention put forth before the High Court is that not only the daily wage worker should have 500 days of service by the cut-off date but also must continue to be in the service of the Board on the date of issuance of the circular. The High Court, however, found that there was no stipulation that such a daily wage worker should be actually in service on the date of issuance of the circular and on that basis dismissed the second appeal. Hence, this appeal by special leave.