(1.) HEARD Sri R.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners. None has appeared on behalf of respondents though counter and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed. I have also perused the record and the relevant judicial precedents.
(2.) IN all these five writ petitions, facts and questions of law involved are similar, therefore, the same have been dealt with together and are being decided by this common judgment. Sri R.C. Saxena has addressed this Court treating writ petition no. 6608 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "first petition") as leading case and pleadings from the same have been referred only, stating that these facts and legal arguments advanced by him would govern all other matters, which involve similar issues. This Court, therefore, has taken facts from the pleadings of the first writ petition for brevity.
(3.) THE two petitioners Anil Kumar and Arvind Pratap Singh in the first petition claimed to have been engaged as casual Helper on 27.3.2001 and 22.5.2003 respectively. Though petitioners claim to have been working continuously from the date of their engagement till alleged oral termination on 12.10.2005, but this fact has been disputed by respondents. However, for the purpose of present case, I proceed on the premise that petitioners, from the date of their initial engagement as Casual Labour, till they have been disengaged orally, have continuously worked, so as to find out whether despite this factual position, the petitioners are entitled to any relief as claimed, and only if answer, would go in favour of the petitioners, the occasion will arise to consider the disputed fact, whether they had actually continued to work or not which would be seen later on, if necessary.