V.V.S. RAO, J.

These writ appeals by the Arrack Bottling Unit (hereafter called, ABU), IML Depot, are against the common judgment of the learned single Judge dated 02.12.2010 in W.P.No.24606 of 2000 and fourteen other writ petitions. W.A.No.638 of 2011, however, is filed against the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice disposing of petitioners’ writ petition following the decision in W.P.No.24606 of 2000. As the issue is common in all the matters and they arise out of a common order passed by the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Warangal, it is necessary to dispose of the matters by a common order.

2. The second respondent herein, who is a workman, and twenty other workmen raised industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They prayed for a declaration that the action of the respondents therein in terminating their services is null and void and for a direction to reinstate the workmen on daily wages with continuance of service, but without backwages. The Tribunal declared that the termination of workmen on 29.11.1989 amounting to retrenchment is illegal, null and void. Aggrieved by those awards where reinstatement was ordered, the respondents therein filed the writ petitions, which were dismissed by the learned single Judge.

3. The background facts in all the writ appeals are the same. We, therefore, hereafter summarise the facts as was done by the Industrial Tribunal. The second respondent in each of the cases, is a workman. In their claim statement, they pleaded that they were appointed as bottling workers in ABU – second petitioner herein, on 25.11.1986 after following the process of selection and subjecting them to interview; they continuously worked there from 25.12.1986 to 03.11.1989 and completed more than 240 days; while paying salaries monthly deductions were made towards provident fund; and that on 03.11.1989 the Manager of the ABU orally terminated the services in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act, for brevity). They prayed for a direction to the Management to reinstatement them with all consequential benefits.

4. The Manager of ABU filed counter on behalf of the management denying the allegation that the workmen were appointed in 1986 and that they continued till November, 1989. It was also alleged that the workmen never worked continuously for 240 days in a period of twelve months and that they were appointed only for a few days in the bottling unit. Further case of management was that a seniority list was prepared and there were 43 casual workers who were found to be seniors to those workmen who approached Industrial Tribunal and that the seniors were continued and others were not entrusted with any work from 30.11.1989.

5. During the enquiry before the Industrial Tribunal all the workmen deposed as W.W.1 to W.W.22 and marked Exs.W.1 to W.9 which included the seniority list, attendance cards, provident fund slips and service certificate of W.W.18. The management examined Manager of ABU as M.W.1 and marked M.1 to M.30. On considering the evidence, the Industrial Tribunal recorded the following findings; the workmen were issued attendance cards by noting the attendance everyday and attendance cards were collected by the Supervisor at the end of every month; the Management suppressed the attendance cards and did not file before the Tribunal though they were in possession of the same, and therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against the Management. The Tribunal also held that when the workmen have discharged initial burden of proving that they worked more than 240 days; the Management failed to rebut the same; it has to be held that most of the workers joined in the ABU on 25.12.1986 as admitted by M.W.1; all the workmen were employed in the shift system duly maintaining shiftwise attendance register; the workmen were provided facility of availing leave and in the attendance registers fro 1988-1989, the leave was not m