( 1 ) THE question which arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether Labour Courts/ tribunals are required to award reinstatement with full back wages in every case of termination of services of a workman in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act or they have the discretion, for just and valid reasons, to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement with back wages.

( 2 ) W. P. NO. 13419 of 1996 is filed by 13 workmen challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal II, Hyderabad, in i. D. No. 193 of 1994 dated 30-12-1995, insofar as the workmen were denied reinstatement. Ms/ Bharat Dynamics Ltd. , their erstwhile employer, filed W. P. No. 20180 of 1996, questioning the same award of the Tribunal in directing that the workmen be considered when fresh appointments are made in the company and in directing that the workman be paid compensation at rs. 7,000/- each.

( 3 ) SINCE the award of the Industrial tribunal-II, Hyderabad in I. D. No. 193 of 1994 dated 30-12-1995, is under challenge in both the writ petitions, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed in W. P. No. 13419 of 1996.

( 4 ) FACTS, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the respondent - company is a defence establishment engaged in the manufacture of high-tech defence equipment such as and tank guided missiles etc. It has two units in Andhra Pradesh, one at Kanchanbagh and the other at bhanoor. The project office, of the respondent company at Bhanoor, was monitoring construction activities entrusted to various agencies. Casual employees were engaged for construction and other ancillary works of the project. Alleging that their services were terminated, without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the petitioners raised a dispute and, on failure of conciliation and a report being submitted in this regard by the Conciliation Officer on 19-10-1990, the Government of Andhra pradesh, vide proceedings in g. O. Rt. No. 3070 dated 21-12-1990, referred the following dispute for adjudication:"whether the management of Bharat dynamics Limited, Bhanoor (v) Medak district is justified in removing the 13 employees whose names are given below in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act? 1. Md. Hyder 2. G. Ramachandraiah 3. B. Kistaiah 4. K. Bikshapathy 5. G. Bikshapathy 6. Srinivasareddy 7. B. Ramulu 8. Bashaty 9. Samaiah 10. Ramchander 11. Lingamaiah 12. S. Nagaiah 13. G. Satyanarayana if, not to what relief the employees are entitled?"

( 5 ) THE Industrial dispute, referred to in G. O. Rt. No. 3070 dated 21. 12. 1990, was numbered as I. D. No. 435 of 1992 by the labour Court-II, Hyderabad and on its transfer to the Industrial Tribunal-II hyderabad, it was renumbered as I. D. No. 183 of 1994. Before the Industrial tribunal the workmen contended that, they had worked with the respondent as helpers/bore Well Operators, they were paid rs. 22/- per day, they had put in continuous service of more than one year, their services were terminated without notice or notice pay and since they had put in continuous service of more than 240 days within a period of twelve months prior to date of their removal from service, and were not paid notice pay or retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes act, they were entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioners contended that, since they had been engaged as Helper/pump Operator/bore Well operator in civil, stores and production departments of the respondent company and had been engaged continuously in a regular nature of work, the action of respondents in removing them from service amounted to retrenchment under Section 2 (oo) of the industrial Disputes Act and, for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 25-F, their termination was illegal and void. They also contended that certain perso