SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J.

( 1 ) THE first petitioner is a trade union and 2nd petitioner it its treasurer. Writpetition is filed in a representative capa cityrepresenting 123 workmen. Accordingto the petitioners, these workmen wereworking in the respondent company forseveral years, in the jobs of permanentand perennial nature, but were deniedemployment. Earlier they were purportedto be employed as 'contract labours',though, as a fact they were direct emp loyees. For regularisation or absorption,these workmen agitated and the matter was pending before the Labour Court, Mangalore, by virtue of the referencedated 19-11 -1985. The respondent com pany,after disconnecting the contractor,had also, in fact, directly employed these 123 workmen calling some of them ascasual workmen. However, on 27-6-1987 all these workmen were orally told thatthey had no work and their services werenot required. Hence the writ petition,invoking Sec. . 25f and 25n of the Indust rial Disputes Act.

( 2 ) THE respondent denied that the workmen were direct employees. It pointed out that in the reference pendingbefore the Labour Court the case of 1193workmen including the 123 workmenreferred in the writ petition, was p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document