( 1 ) ALL these Writ Petitions can conveniently be disposed of by a common order as common questions of facts and law arise for consideration.

( 2 ) THE Additional Industrial Tribunal, hyderabad (hereinafter called the Tribunal ) by a common award dated 30-6-1999 in I. D. No. 1 of 1999 and batch dismissed 45 Industrial Dispute cases filed by some permanent employees of the 2nd respondent-Company. The present Writ petitions, except Writ Petition No. 7514 of 2000, arising out of I. D. Nos. 1, 82, 81, 77, 137, 103, 4, 80, 79, 78, 76, 75, 5, 10, 89, 87, 100, 6, 92, 88, 8, 11, 102 and 85 of 1999 respectively are filed by some of the workmen questioning the common award of the Tribunal rejecting their claim for reinstatement into the 2nd respondent - company consequent on revival of the manufacturing activity in their establishment. Writ Petition No. 7514 of 2000 arising out of a similar dispute in i. D. No. 46 of 1999 is also directed against a similar award dated 30-6-1999 passed by the Tribunal separately. The facts are not in dispute. Briefly stated they are as under : the 2nd respondent is a Company engaged in the manufacture of Indian made foreign liquor. The State of Andhra Pradesh by legislative enactment imposed prohibition in the State with effect from 1-1-1995. The Government directed the 2nd respondent to close down its manufacturing activity. The 2nd respondent sought permission of the Government of Andhra pradesh under Section 25-O of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the act ) seeking permission to close down the unit, as the manufacturing of liquor cannot be carried on. Initially, permission was rejected, but later, the Government reviewed their decision and issued g. O. Rt. No. 2192 dated 23-9-1995 directing the 2nd respondent to close down their establishment after observing all the prerequisites required therefor. Accordingly, the unit was closed. In view of the long service put up by the employees/workmen, the 2nd respondent mutually discussed with the workers union and brought into existence Voluntary Retirement Scheme-1995. (hereinafter called as vrs ). The representatives of the workmen and the representatives of the management signed the scheme on 22-10-1995. The VRS was given effect to. It is in the evidence led before the Tribunal that as on the date of closure of the establishment of the 2nd respondent, there were 266 workmen including 70 casual workmen. Out of the total work force, 196 workmen opted for vrs, which includes 167 permanent employees and 29 casual workers. The remaining 70 workers did not opt for VRS. It is not disputed that all those who opted for voluntary retirement were paid the compensation and other amounts under vrs as per Paragraph (c) of VRS. It is also necessary to mention that the workmen filed applications for payment of VRS amount under the scheme which, inter alia, states that the workmen are taking all the benefits under the VRS and shall have no right or claim for re-employment or for employment in the company and that the workmen shall have no other claim or right in the company monetarily or otherwise.

( 3 ) THE policy to impose prohibition in the State of A. P. was, however reversed in 1997. The State partially lifted prohibition. This enabled the 2nd respondent to restart their manufacturing activity in their establishment. Accordingly, in July 1997, the 2nd respondent started its operations. In connection with the reopening of the establishment, the 2nd respondent entered into settlement under sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Act benefiting only those employees who were on its permanent roll and accordingly such employees were reengaged by the 2nd respondent after reopening of the unit. The settlement-dated 9-7-1997 speaks of rationalization of manpower requirements to achieve the optimum productivity and best utilization of the new technically advanced automated bottling hall. In furtherance thereof, the manpower requirements were arriv