- (1.) The appellants have only themselves to blame for not having appeared on August 13, 2013, even at the second call, when the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by some of the employees of the first appellant company was allowed.
(2.) The appellants applied for a review but failed. The appellants say that the judgment and order impugned is contrary to the position that was settled pursuant to previous orders of this court and the action taken thereupon by the appellants. The appellants suggest that though some of the relevant previous orders are mentioned in the impugned judgment, the Single Bench failed to appreciate the scope, effect and purport thereof. The appellants assert that as a result of the previous orders passed by this Court, no order could have been passed on the present petition.
(3.) The matter is as old as the year 1999. At the relevant point of time, there were several drivers engaged by the appellants on a temporary basis. A scheme was framed in 1999 to absorb 350 of the casual drivers into regular service. The casual drivers who had been left out instituted W.P. No. 19364 (W) of 2001 challenging the perceived discriminatory act on the part of the first appellant in regularising some of the casual drivers and not all of them. In addition to the prayer for regularisation, such writ petitioners also claimed equal pay for equal work. Such writ petition was disposed of by a judgment and order of November 19, 2004. The plea of equal pay for equal work was not entertained since there was no foundation therefor in the writ petition. However, on the principal ground, the Court held as follows at paragraph 17 of the judgment: "17. With the above findings and observations, I dispose of the writ petition by the following order:- Within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order the respondents, and in particular the Government and the second respondent, shall frame a scheme for giving all the benefits of permanent bus driver (like the ones working at the present moment under the second respondent) to the petitioners. Till such benefits are extended none of the petitioners working at the present moment shall be disengaged except on the ground of proven misconduct. The scheme shall ensure that none of the petitioners stands unjustly eliminated. The authorities shall also take a decision about the feasibility of paying the petitioners at higher rates till they get benefits of permanent driver in terms of the scheme. This decision shall also be taken within the same period." ;