Arising out of SLP(C) No. 1143 of 2008
Arijit Pasayat, J.-
It is true that this appeal has been
preferred against an order by which the appellants were not granted
interim order during the pendency of the appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel
for the parties and examined the impugned order in depth and in detail.
4. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, we are of the view that the prayer for grant of 2 stay
of operation of the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court,
by which regularization of the services of the workmen was passed, if
not stayed, the entire appeal would become infructuous. Be it mentioned
herein, that the Division Bench of the High Court, however, granted stay
of payment of arrears till the disposal of the appeal. That being the
position, we grant the stay against the regularization of the services
of the workmen till the disposal of the appeal as well. Accordingly, the
refusal to stay against regularisation of the services of the workmen
stands set aside and interim order is granted in the manner indicated
till the disposal of the appeal.
5. For the reasons aforesaid, the
appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order
as to costs.
6. The High Court is now requested
to dispose of the writ petition pending before the learned 3 Single
Judge, if not already disposed of in the meantime, within a period of
three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order positively
without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
We make it clear that we have not gone into the disputes raised by the
parties in the writ application, which shall be decided by the learned
Single Judge in accordance with law.
Print This Judgment