These four cases grounded on simi1ar facts raise the same issue. Hence, this common order.

2. The Machilipatnam Municipality engaged the services of the four writ petitioners as malaria workers/drain cleaner during the years 1990-1993. The character of their engagement is in dispute but the fact remains that the Municipality conceded before the Labour Court, Guntur, that they worked for more than the requisite 240 days during the 12 months prior to their disengagement from service in the year 1993. There is also no dispute that such disengagement was not in compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1947'). These facts stood affirmed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in the separate Awards dated 30.11.2004 passed by it in the individual Industrial Disputes raised by; these petitioners under Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947. These LOs. were instituted with delay in the year 1998 and in the case of one petitioner, in 1999. The Labour Court, Guntur, having found in favour of the petitioners on the above facts, directed payment of compensation quantified at three months salary amounting to less than Rs.5,000/- each, being notice pay for one month along with two months pay for 24 months service. The Labour Court further granted interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the I.D. and costs of Rupees One thousand. The Labour Court took into account the delay on the part of the petitioners in invoking its jurisdiction and relying upon precedents, it passed Awards as aforestated. Aggrieved by the denial of the reliefs of reinstatement in service with back wages and continuity of service, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. In its counters filed in three out of the four cases, the Machilipatnam Municipality took the stand that the petitioners had only been engaged as badili (substitute) workers in temporary leave vacancies. While admitting the length of service rendered by them, the Municipality stated that pursuant to the instructions of the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Andhra Pradesh, engagement of badili workers was discontinued in the 1993. It stated that two of such disengaged workmen raised industrial disputes - I.D.Nos.281 and 282 of 1996 and ex parte Awards dated 30.10.1997 were passed therein directing their reinstatement in service along with back wages and continuity of service. The Municipality alleged that taking a cue from this, the petitioners in these four cases belatedly sought the same relief before the Labour Court. The Municipality sought to support the Awards passed by the Labour Court directing payment of compensation. It pointed out that there was a long gap of five years after the disengagement of the petitioners from service and therefore, award of compensation was the right relief to be granted. The Municipality further stated that there were no vacancies either in the posts of badili workers or regular public health workers and that it was not in a position to meet· the regular salaries of its existing workers and employees. It accordingly sought dismissal of the writ petitions.

4. Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that once the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners were retrenched from service within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act of 1947 and such retrenchment was in violation of the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, it ought to have followed the normal rule of directing reinstatement in service. He argued that the Municipality had not pleaded any special circumstances warranting deviation from such rule necessitating the award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. He therefore prayed for a direction for reinstatement in service of all the petitioners with consequential benefits. He relied on case law in support of his contention.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Municipality, on the other hand, relied on the recent j