VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. - (1.) AS these two writ applications arise out of the same impugned award, in two References of the Labour Court and the points in issue involved in both of them are same, these have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed these writ applications for quashing the award of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Annexure -1, by which respondents -employees were directed to be reinstated with back wages. The respondents -employees were appointed as peons under the petitioner and they were posted as Night Guards. They were in continuous service till they were removed. They received letter issued by the Managing Director of the petitioner - Corporation whereby they had been directed to show cause as to why they should not be stopped from working in view of the financial position and strength of Peons. The respondents -employees requested the management not to terminate them, rather to regularize them because they have been working continuously since 1987. But without considering the points raised by them, they and many others were terminated from service with effect from 15.7.1994. Thereafter, it appears that the respondents -employees had raised disputes and the matter was forwarded to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ranchi, and the Labour Commissioner, Patna. Reconciliation failed. Thereafter, references (2/96 and 5/96) were made to the Labour Court. References were made on the point. Whether the termination of services of the respondents -workmen of M/s. Bihar State Financial Corporation, Main Road, Ranchi, is proper? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to? The award went in favour of the workmen and so the Management invoked the writ jurisdiction.
(3.) THE respondents in paragraph 9 of the counter -affidavit have averred that along with the respondents, the services of as many as 13 persons were terminated, vide order dated 11,7.1994, of whom Miss. Prasanna Kumari Amma was one of them and she had filed a writ application being CWJC No. 2112 of 1994(R) which was dismissed and against which LPA No. 237/ 1995{R) was filed and this Court, vide judgment dated 20.8.1996, set aside the judgment rendered in CWJC No. 2112/ 94(R) and also set aside the order dated 11.7.1994. The only difference between the cases of Miss Prasanna Kumari Amma and the respondents employees herein is that Miss Prasanna Kumari Amma filed writ application directly in the High Court and the respondents - -employees herein had chal - lenged the same by raising industrial dispute.;