SINCHAI MAZDOOR SANGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. P. Mohapatra, C. J. All these spe cial appeals being similar in nature involv ing similar facts and points of law, were heard together with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties They are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE controversy raised in these cases relates to the date from which the appellants will be given the benefit of parity of pay with regular tube-well operators. Since we are not concerned very much with the merit of the claim of the appellants in the writ petition, it is not necessary to set out in detail the facts of the case. For the purpose of appreciation of the controversy, it would be sufficient to state the following facts:

(3.) IT is also relevant to state here that before the aforementioned judgment was rendered, the Labour Court, on reference of the dispute raised at the instance of some-part-time tube-well operators, had passed an award that they were entitled to the same pay/wages as the tube-well operators.