said hospital, petitioners were working as hospital assistant till 31.08.2000 and salary of Rs.1,000/- per month was being paid to the petitioners. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that, the respondent has refused to continue the service of the petitioners and the said action on the part of the respondent is unfair and as such sought for reinstatement of the petitioners with full pay with back wages and continuity of service and such other benefits. It is also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that, the finding recorded by the Labour Court, particularly ignoring the Ex.M10 and admission made by the management witness MW-1 dated 09.05.2006, and as such it is argued that, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is liable to be quashed. It is also the categorical argument by the learned Senior Counsel that the employment of the petitioners was continued by the respondent - Hospital, even after 1997 till 2000 and the said fact demonstrates the relationship of employer and workmen till 31.08.2000 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. In order to buttress his arguments, he refers to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V.ANIL MITHRA AND ANOTHER Vs. SRI. SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF
