Selected menu has been deleted. Please select the another existing nav menu.
=

After big win, Pepsu workers face fresh roadblock in regularisation battle

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur. Facilisis eu sit commodo sit. Phasellus elit sit sit dolor risus faucibus vel aliquam. Fames mattis.

HTML tutorial

Just over a month after a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed Pepsu Road Transport Corporation to regularise the services of employees working at various posts for the last 10 to 20 years, a Division Bench has ordered the maintenance of status quo regarding their services.In its appeal placed before the Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth and Justice Ramesh Chander Dimri, Pepsu through counsel Abhilaksh Gaind and Rakeesh Roy submitted that the Single Judge in his judgment dated April 22 allowed the petition directing it to regularise services within six weeks, failing which they would be deemed to be regularised.Referring to interim order dated May 21 passed in another appeal filed by Pepsu, the counsel submitted that the issue regrading regularisation was already pending adjudication before the High Court on August 31.Issuing notice of motion for August 31, the Bench directed that the matter would be heard along with the other appeal. “In the meanwhile, status quo with regard to the services of private respondents shall be maintained by the department concerned,” the Judges asserted.It was added that the Single Bench allowed the writ petition on the premise that the employees concerned were outsourced workers engaged for work of a perennial nature. It was also held that the writ petitioners had been employed pursuant to the issuance of an advertisement, on the basis of specific eligibility criteria, followed by a test and preparation of a merit list. Accordingly, the Single Bench directed that the writ petitioners be regularised within six months from the date of the order and, if not, they would be deemed to have been regularised.However, the Single Bench failed to appreciate the factual position that the writ petitioners were never engaged directly by the appellants and were, in fact, outsourced employees. It was further submitted that the outsourcing agency through whom their services were provided to the appellants was never impleaded as a party-respondent in the writ petition.

HTML tutorial

Tags :

Search

Popular Posts


Useful Links

Selected menu has been deleted. Please select the another existing nav menu.

Recent Posts

©2025 – All Right Reserved. Designed and Developed by JATTVIBE.