PRAKASH DRAVID Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four Letters Patent Appeals have been filed against a common order dated November 2, 1997 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 1364/1997, 1360/1997, 1270/1997 and 1267/1997, out of which these appeals arise, and shall be disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The appellants/petitioners who were workmen filed the aforesaid petitions for a direction that the respondents shall continue them in service and shall regularise them in service on the ground that their termination from service is illegal. It is contended that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act). Return was filed in W.P. No. 1358/1997 and it was adopted by the counsel for the respondents in other cases also. The learned writ Court considered the entire material on record in great detail in paras 5 to 11, In para 9 the learned single Judge while dealing with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act relied on the decisions in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Orissa AIR 1977SC31: 1976(4) SCC222 : 1977-I-LLJ-1, Mohanlal v, Bharat Electronics Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 1253 : 1981 (3) SCC 225 : 1981-II-LLJ-70, and Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Chandigarh 1990 (3) SCC 682 : 1990-II-LLJ-70. The case of Himanshu Kumar v. State of Bihar and others 1997 (4)SCC391: 1998-II-LLJ-15, was also considered, and in para 112 the writ Court directed that:

(3.) In these appeals learned counsel for the appellants advanced the same contentions which were raised before the writ Court. Shri Gajendragadkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Shivpuri Development Authority, Shivpuri, relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Supdt. Engineer, PWD and another v. Dev Prakash Shrivas and others 1999-II-LLJ-663 (MP-FB), to contend that existence of permanent vacancy is a must for reinstatement.