DEVANAND Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2006-5-198
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 03,2006

DEVANAND Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RAJES KUMAR,J. - (1.) PRESENT writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.3.2003 passed by the Prescribed Authority by which the reference made by the Labour Court has been decided against the petitioner.
(2.) PETITIONER was admittedly engaged as daily wager by the respondents. It is claimed that the petitioner worked during the period 6.8.1986 to 26.6.1988 and, thereafter no work has been taken from the petitioner. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 21679 of 1991, challenging the removal. This Court vide order dated 28.11.1995 has held as follows : "Since they are temporary daily wage employees so long as there is no regular posts available for the appointment the question of making pay on a per with the regular employees does not arise. But the appellant should necessarily and by implication, pay the minimum wages prescribed under the statute, if any or the prevailing wages as available in the locality. Now, Mr. Tandon, submits that the petitioners should be allowed to continue or to give new assignment or a reengagement in case the respondents has undertaken any project. Be that as it may, in the fact and circumstances of the case this writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents to re -engage the petitioner in case any new project is undertaken by the respondent at any place whatsoever on the basis of priority of claim in the light of the observation made in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra)." It appears that the petitioner has been further engaged as Chaukidar during the period 23.6.1996 to 11.8.1996 on daily wage basis. Thereafter, the petitioner has not been engaged in the service. The petitioner moved an application to the Labour Officer and on the basis of the application, reference was made to the Prescribed Authority, Labour Court, Gorakhpur, which has been decided by the impugned order. It has been held by the impugned order that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit.
(3.) HEARD Sri B. Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.