Rajan Roy, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition was filed in the year 1998 challenging an award of the Labour Court dated 24.12.1997. The reference to the Labour Court was as to whether the employer had acted illegally and unjustifiable in not regularizing the services of the workman on the post of Dairyman, if so the benefits to which he was entitled etc. The Labour Court after hearing the parties and considering the evidence adduced by them opined that though the initial appointment on daily wages was on the post of Dairyman but with effect from 1989 he did not work on the said post and in fact the said post was not vacant, but, at the same time the Labour Court opined that the work of Store Kooli was being taken from the petitioner since 1989, however, as the reference was with regard to the post of Dairy Man it was answered by saying that there was no reason for regularizing the services of the petitioner.
(2.) When this writ petition was entertained against the aforesaid award an interim order was passed on 11.09.2001 in the following terms:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents despite case having been shown in supplementary cause list. Petitioner's case is that he has been working as Dairyman since the year 1985 but he has been orally stopped from performing his duties w.e.f. 30.11.2000. There is finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner was working as Store Kooli. In the counter affidavit filed by the opp-parties the factum of working of the petitioner is admitted. In view of the above, in case, the work and post are available, the petitioner shall continue as daily wager on the same terms and conditions on which he was working on or before 30.11.2000. "
(3.) However, it is the admitted factual position as borne out during the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the opposite parties who are present that the petitioner was disengaged on 30.11.2000. The case of the opposite parties is that in fact the petitioner was not working since prior to the passing of the interim order dated 11.09.2001.;