AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 245 wordsVipin Sanghi, CJ
1) The present special appeal is directed against the order dated 03.03.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, in writ petition preferred by the respondent, being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 349 of 2023.
2) While entertaining the writ petition, and granting time to the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) to file their counter-affidavit, the learned Single Judge has directed that, in the meantime, the respondent / writ petitioner shall be allowed to work and paid the remuneration.
3) The grievance raised by the respondent / writ petitioner was that that he was serving as a daily wager in the U.P. Warehousing Corporation since 2008. Where after, the bifurcation of the Warehousing Corporation was undertaken in 2016. He claimed that he had been transferred to the appellant Corporation. In 2018, the appellants created an outsourcing agency, and the workers were shown as employed through the outsourcing agency. The respondent / writ petitioner claimed that the said arrangement was done by the appellant for its own convenience, and the same is a farce. On that premise, the learned Single Judge granted the interim relief to the respondent / writ petitioner. Matter is now listed on 03.05.2023.
4) Aforesaid being the position, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
5) We, however, make it clear that the observations made by this Court shall not influence the mind of the learned Judge, while dealing with the writ petition.