ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants were appointed as daily-wagers. These appeals have been preferred from an order of the Division Bench by which the Division Bench of the High Court had directed the reinstatement of the respondents in service with back wages.

3. The facts of the case in all these appeals are substantially similar. We, therefore, take up the case of Mukesh Sharma as the leading case. The respondent Mukesh Sharma was appointed in 1991 as a daily-wager by the appellant. On 30-9-1994, a writ petition was filed by several workers including Mukesh Sharma for regularisation. The writ petition was disposed of by a direction to the Government to decide whether the workers were seasonal or not. It was made clear that the fact that workers had not been appointed by the competent authority, would not be relevant. It was also made clear that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act would be applicable to the seasonal workers. However, in case the workers d were not in employment of the appellant Samiti, the Samiti was free to pass any order as the facts and circumstances warranted.

4. A letters patent appeal was preferred by the workers from this order of the learned Single Judge. That LPA was disposed of by an order dated 2-4-1998 by directing the Government to take a decision on the point as mentioned by the learned Single Judge after giving notice to both the parties within four months from the date of communication of the order in accordance with law.

5. It may be noted at this stage that the appellant Samiti had been left free, by the order of the learned Single Judge, to take action against those who were not in the appellants employment.

6. On 11-10-1999 an order was passed by the Samiti in the case of Mukesh Sharma saying that he had not been appointed by the appellant and had been appointed by the Director of the Government and as such he is not qualified for appointment. It was further held that he should be removed since the instructions were that no daily-wager could be appointed after 31-12-1988 by any samiti. On 10-12-2000 a general order was passed that all daily-wagers appointed after 1-1-1989 be removed as employees. A showcause notice was issued to the respondent on 14-1-2000. In that notice, it was stated that the respondent was given an opportunity to show cause why his services should not be terminated w.e.f. instructions dated 31-12-1988. On 22-1- 2000, since no satisfactory reply had been given by the respondent, his services were terminated and he was given one months salary and retrenchment compensation along with the order of termination.

7. Challenging this order, a writ petition was filed by the respondent. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 15-2-2000 stating that disputed questions of fact were involved. The appropriate remedy for the respondent-writ petitioner was to approach the Labour Court for redressal.

8. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal. The Division Bench found that although only the writ petitioner was present when the order of learned Single Judge was passed, the Government Advocates name had been mentioned in the order. The Division Bench then came to the conclusion "thus Government Advocate was hearts behind the back of the petitioner. Before considering any other reasonable are of the view that this particular inference was unwarranted was nobodys case that the Government had been surreptitiously heard then the respondent-Writ petitioner was not present.

9. The additional reason given by the Division Bench was that the appellant had not complied with the earlier order passed in the earlier round of litigation. As we have noted, the appellant Samiti claims to have taken action in terms of the directions given by the Court. However, the Division Bench said that until the decision was taken by the Government, the direction passed in the earlier proceedings should be complied with. This order was passed on 20-