- (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P(S) No. 3385 of 2013 dated 30th June, 2014 whereby, the petition preferred by this appellant has been dismissed and liberty is reserved with this appellant to raise industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Against this judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred.
(2.) Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that it is a case of the appellanttrade union that it has espoused the cause of more than 560 workmen, who are engaged since 1977, but, till today, they are the employees of the Contractor and therefore, their services should be regularized. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the circular issued by the respondents which is at Annexure4 and has submitted that if an employee is working prior to 1st August, 1985 his services should be regularized. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and therefore, this Letters Patent Appeal may be allowed.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon other annexures and submitted that even in the year 2005 suitable directions were given by the office of the Labour Commissioner to give reply about their regularization because they are working since long and are performing the regular work of principal employer. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.;