PRAKASH TATIA, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned award dated February 1, 2003 passed by the Labour Court in these five matters having identical facts. Since, according to learned counsel for the petitioner facts of one petition i. e. S. B. C. W. P. No. 4757/2002 can represent the complete factual aspect of the matter, therefore, there is no need to mention fact of each case.
(2.) It appears from the award that the petitioner earlier preferred the writ petition in which directions were issued to the Labour Court to decide the claim of the non-petitioner. The claim of the non-petitioner-workman is that he was working with the petitioner since 1989 and continued to serve till 25/09/1999. Before that, the petitioner regularised the services of the non-petitioner on regular pay scale by order dated 25/02/1997. By order dated 25/09/1999 on the plea of eligibility, the above benefit was withdrawn and the non-petitioner was treated as temporary employee. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing the writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition again by order dated 31/03/2000 services of the non petitioner were terminated. The High Court in non-petitioner's writ petition directed non-petitioner to approach the Labour Court upon which the Labour Court took up the claim case of the non-petitioner wherein the non-petitioner claimed that relief of reinstatement be given to the non-petitioner from the date of 25/09/1999.
(3.) The petitioner, in reply, before the Labour Court admitted that non-petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1989 in Ashram Hostel by the petitioner on daily wages basis on the post of Sweeper. In pursuance of the directions dated 29/03/1996 issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharmpal and others, the non-petitioner's services were regularised by paying regular pay scale of Rs. 750- 940 from 15/08/1996 which is the minimum pay scale of the said post. Thereafter, the petitioner found that non-petitioner- workman was not eligible for the said post at the time of earlier appointment and the State Government refused to relax the eligibility criteria, therefore, again in pursuance of the order dated 30/03/2000, the services of the non-petitioner were terminated from 31/03/2000.;