U.P. Small Industries Corporation ... vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I) ... on 6 May, 2005
The judgment of apex court in U.P.S.E.B. v. P.O., Labour Court, Gorakhpur, 1996 (74) F.L.R. 2600 squarely covers the arguments of the petitioners. It is also clear from the interim order that the High Court had passed interim order to pay full wages to the workman month by month as the petitioners had permitted him to join his duties. Since the workman had worked after reinstatement in pursuance of the award, he is entitled to wages at par with other daily wage employees in terms of the orders of the High Court dated 7.4.2000 in Writ Petition No. 6347 of 2000. Admittedly the workman was not appointed against any post though he continued from 5.12.1988 to 31.12.1994, i.e., for about six years. There is no pleading of the petitioners that there was no sanctioned post. He could not have worked against a leave vacancy for such a long period as admittedly Suresh Kumar, Chowkidar, had joined his post after he returned from leave. The petitioners have not denied to have taken work from the respondent-workman like regular sanctioned post. What is stated by them is that the workman was not issued an appointment letter for working against a sanctioned post. This implies that even without issuing appointment letter the petitioners were taking work of permanent nature from the respondent-workman as if he was appointed against a sanctioned post.