IMPORTANT POINT
Initial burden is on workmen to show that they have worked for 240 days. Then only the burden shifts to management to show otherwise.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 16.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No.1434 of 2016 and batch in and by which the High Court has affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge directing reinstatement and the back wages at 50%.

3. Between 1986-89, the respondents were engaged as Store Watchman on daily wages under NMR basis temporarily in newly created Sectional stores in various Sub Divisions under the control of Rural Water Supply (RWS) Divisions, Nagercoil. In the Engagement Order, it has been specifically mentioned that the engagement on daily wage basis will be purely temporary and the services will be terminated when the requirement is over and that they cannot claim any right for any further appointment in TWAD Board. In the Engagement Order itself, it is clearly stated that engagement is purely temporary and their services will be terminated when the requirement is over without prior notice. In view of the Board decision, all the Sectional stores were closed and the Divisional stores (each for one district) were formed. Consequent on formation of Divisional stores, the respondents were terminated from their services in the year 1990 for want of vacancies.

4. The respondents raised an industrial dispute and on failure of the conciliation proceedings, the same was referred to the Labour Court, Madurai. The Labour Court allowed the petitions and held that the termination of the services of the respondents is not valid and is not sustainable. The Labour Court passed the award on 12.04.2000 directing reinstatement of the respondents into service with back wages for the period of non-employment and with continuity of service. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Board filed writ petition in W.P.No.23720 of 2002 challenging the award of the Labour Court.

5. The learned Single Judge found that the workmen have not produced any documents to show that they have worked continuously for 240 days. The learned Single Judge also pointed out that the Management also has not produced any documents to show that the respondents-workmen have not worked continuously for 240 days. However, the learned Single Judge affirmed the award passed by the Labour Court to the extent of reinstatement of the workmen. Insofar as the back wages are concerned, the learned Single Judge held that since the matter has been pending from 1991, the respondents-workmen are entitled to get 50% back wages only.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Board has filed the writ appeal before the Division Bench which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Board has preferred the present appeals.

7. On 10.08.2018, the Supreme Court granted stay of the impugned judgment on condition that the appellant-Board to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs) to each of the contesting respondents in addition to the amount that has already been paid to the respondents. Mr. Paramasivam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Board has submitted that in compliance of the order dated 10.08.2018, the appellant-Board has paid Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs) to each of the respondents which has been recorded (vide order dated 14.01.2019).

8. We have heard Mr. Paramasivam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Board as well as Ms. Sanya Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-workmen.

9. In the judgment passed in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has pointed out that the respondents-workmen have not produced any documents to prove that they have worked continuously for 240 days. For temporary worker like NMR respondents, it is mandatory to show that they have continuously worked for 240 days in a year. This aspect, in our view, ought to have been taken note by the Division Bench before affirming the order of r