ITI LTD Vs. MOOLCHAND DADHICH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 1.8.2013 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.206/2013 affirming the interim restraint granted earlier by the order dated 8.1.2013 is in assailment in the present appeal. We have heard Mr.Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellants. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered essential to issue any formal notice to the respondents herein.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts in bare minimum necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent no.1 -herein had been initially appointed with the appellants on 26.2.1988 on contract basis and according to him (respondent no.1 herein), he had been continuing since then without any break till his services were terminated on 27.12.2012. He has pleaded that his term initially fixed had in between been extended from time to time and though he was required to perform the duties of a regular incumbent, his services inspite of several representations were not regularized. He eventually approached this Court with S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1275/02 and finally by the judgment and order dated 9.12.2010 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.185/2009, the appellants were required to consider his case for regularization, which however, was decided against him on 4.3.2011. Being aggrieved, the respondent no.1 instituted S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6305/2011 which is sub -judice before this Court.

(3.) BY the order dated 8.1.2013, the learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in the interim stayed the operation of the order dated 27.12.2012 and directed that he (respondent no.1) be allowed to discharge his duties. In effecting this arrangement, the learned Single Judge took note amongst others of the submission made on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the appellant -Company did have projects in hand. As the records would reveal, the appellants thereafter filed their pleadings contending in substance that the project against which the respondent no.1 had been engaged on contract basis limited by time, has since been completed and consequently, the casual temporary workers like him have been removed. They averred that the respondent no.1 had not been engaged against any sanctioned post and that the terms and conditions of his engagement did clearly disclose that his services would be discontinued after the concerned project was over. They pleaded as well that the decision against regularization of his services had been taken in compliance of the decision of this Court.