STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. GAJALAL BARETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above writ petitions viz. Writ petition (L) No. 3034 of 2009, Writ petition (L) No. 5246 of 2010, Writ petition (L) No. 5965 of 2010, Writ petition (L) No. 5964 of 2010, Writ petition (L) No. 5963 of 2010. involve common facts and question of law, thus, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) WRIT petition (L) No- 5377 of 2010, Writ petition (L) No. 537S of 2010, Writ petition (L) No. 5376 of 2010 were heard and reserved for orders on 27.01.2011, which also involve common facts and question of taw, thus, they are also being disposed of by this order itself.

(3.) SHRI Y.S.Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing with Shri Sushil Dubey. Government Advocate for the State/petitioners would submit that in all the above cases, the respondents were appointed as daily wagers and thus, the respondents are not entitled to any relief as granting reinstatement on account of non-compliance of the provisions of section25-F of the Act, 1947 amounts to regularizing the services of Ihe respondents. Their appointment was on daily wages basis, not in accordance with the constitutional scheme of employment. Shri Thakur would next contend that the application before the Labour Court was filed after inordinate delay of about 14 years. He would rely on a decision of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. V. Anil Kumar Mishra and Others 1, Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Taffic), Bhopal v.Santosh Kumar Seal and Ors. 2