INTF HIGH C0UI OF KARNATAKk BANGAILRE Dated this the 8th d of June, 1998 Before TH HON’BLk MR. JUSiIGE V.P. MORAN KUMAR Between: 1. Sri G.C. Rajumar, Sb Chirinegoda,majcr, Gatbalu, V.V.Pura, Yathadbal1y Road, Manclya- 571 403 2. Sri Rafi Abmed, 3/0 S 8 rdar Ahiied, major Sreenivasa Temple R0 , Maya 571 403. ,jetjtjoaers (By Sri Victor Manoharan,Adv.) A n d: 1. T he St ate o f Kar nat ak bX its Secrary, ocial Welfare & Labour Department, M,6, Building, Baxalore— 1. 2. The abour Commissioner VISL Building, J.C.Road, B angalore—2. 3. The Executive Engineer, No.6, Hemavathi Left Bank Can. Divisi on, Pravapiara, ian1ya District. — a a 2’ A 4. The Executive Engineer, No.8, iiemwhi Left Bank Cand. Divisicm, Basaralu, NwIya DistricS. •.Respondents (i Sit C.Raakrishna, HCGP) These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Contitution of India prtng to issue a writ in the nature of msds directing the respondents to refer the cases of the petitioners for adjudication to the L*our Court etc. Theee petitions coning on for hang in ‘B’ Group this dc, the Court made the following: Petitioners herein claim that thq’have been employed by the 3rd respondent as a Technical Graduate Assist sut on daily wage basis. Their aetricea were tertnated sometime in 1986—87 allegedly after completion of 24odays. They seems to have been approached the Kan,staka Adrdnistrative Tribunal for appropriate relief by filing application nutered as 3083/1987 and the same Was disposed off on 26—12—1988 directing the respondent not to termirate the services of the petitioners for three monhs so as to enable a a —3— erable them to approach the Supreme Court. It is alleged th the 3r respondent had nct taken any action for their regulisation. They were, it is alleged constrained to move this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directir the responders to refer the cases of t petitioners for adjudication to the Labour Cot. No reference can be me suo motu, The petitioners are free to raise a dispute before the appropriate authority concerneck complaining of the termination who may conciliate, if a dispute still exists and on the report of the Conciliation Officer the 1st respondent ma pass appropriate orders. The writ petitions stand disposed of aS above, JUDGE 1*11 j4)