S.RAJENDRA BABU, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) A writ petition was filed by the appellant in the High Court challenging an order made by an inspector of labour, Tuticorin (hereinafter referred to as the first-respondent) directing it to appoint respondents 2 to 50 as permanent workers in its establishment.

(3) THE learned single judge before whom the matter came up, noticing that the appellant had not refuted that the 49 respondents are in continuous service and have completed 480 days in 24 calendar months and they having not been cross-examined, nor filing any documents against their continuous employment, dismissed the writ petition. Against that order, a writ appeal was filed before the High Court by the appellant unsuccessfully. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

(4) THIS Court after directing status quo to be maintained while issuing notice kept the question of absorption in abeyance. Thereafter, this Court made an order on 16/8/1999 that 38 out of the 49 respondents have already been absorbed and for the remaining 11 persons, the process is continuing. On 22/11/99, a statement was made that in regard to remaining 11 workmen, the respo