- (1.) By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The writ petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petition being CWJC No. 2035 of 1994(R), wherein after taking note of the fact that the petitioners were working as daily wage earners since 1972 and by the time the petitioners' writ petition was decided the writ petitioners have already completed 25 30 years, obviously in the year 2002. The petitioners' writ petition was allowed and the appellant respondent was directed to regularize the services of the writ petitioners and time was given of thirty days. However, it has been observed, in addition to above specific direction, that if the services of the petitioners are not regularized they shall be paid salary at par with the regular employees. This order has attained the finality. Therefore, the petitioners were entitled to be regularized as per the first part of the order and if not regularized then they were entitled to the salary at par with the regular employee. The respondents appellants though accepted the said order, which has attained the finality, but instead of regularizing them in service, started paying the salary at par with the regular employees. The petitioners, when not granted the pay scale similar to the regular employee, which includes annual increment etc. then approached this Court by filing W.P.(S)No.1854 of 2009 which was disposed of with direction to the Managing Director of the Corporation to examine this issue, whether casual employees are also entitled to the increments which are given to regular employees or not. The Managing Director thereafter considered the matter and held that the petitioners are eligible for regularization in service.
(3.) According to the appellants, the Managing Director had no jurisdiction to take decision. The stand of the appellants is just in contrast to the direction given by the High Court in W.P.(S) No.1854 of 2009 dated 10 th November, 2009, whereby Managing Director of the Corporation was directed to examine the issue and to take a decision. Therefore, the Managing Director was fully competent to take a decision in pursuance of the direction of this Court. It is very strange that the employees who are in service for almost 25 30 years as back as in the year 2002 and who are being paid salary at par with the regular employee, are being denied to have the absorption in the service, so as to deny them the benefit of increments and post retiral benefits. This is a grave case of abuse of the position of the employer in violation to all safeguards which have been provided in the Industrial Disputes Act against unfair labour practice etc.;