The initial burden of proof was on the workmen to show completion of 240 days of service. The Tribunal erred in placing the burden on the employer and drawing adverse inferences for non-production of documents. The judgment of acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle reinstatement. The effect of reinstatement does not change the status of the workmen.

( 1 ) THE respondents herein were Ticca Mazdoors working under the appellant herein. Ticca Mazdoors are intermittently appointed by the reserve Bank of India whenever absence of regular Class IV employees takes place. They are not engaged everyday or continuously. Their engagement depends upon the need of the appellant. They are never regarded as regular Mazdoors. Two waiting lists are maintained by the appellant. The first waiting list contains the names of such of them who may be appointed as regular Mazdoors whereas the second list is maintained for those who are to be engaged as Ticca Mazdoors. The names of the respondents figured in the second list. They were appointed in the said category as Ticca Mazdoor between the period 14th March, 1980 and 8th August, 1982 for the purpose of their appointment as regular Mazdoors. The respondents herein, except respondent 6, were interviewed on different dates between January 1982 and May 1982. Allegedly, during interview, they produced transfer certificates but their answers to the questions posed in this behalf were not in conformity therewith, whereupon a verification was made and it was found that the said certificates were forged and fabricated. Three first information reports were lodged by the officers of the appellant herein for furnishing false certificates by the respondents. In the criminal case, however, they were acquitted by three different judgments passed on 20th April, 1987, 5th August, 1987 and 24th september, 1987. Between October 1987 and August 1988, the respondents submitted fresh school transfer certificates and requested the appellant herein to re-employ them. As their request for re-employment was not accepted, an industrial dispute was raised resulting in a reference made by the Central Government for adjudication thereof to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, bangalore. The Industrial Tribunal by an award dated 18-12-1997 held that the respondents having completed 240 days of service; and their terminations having been brought about without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and, thus, being illegal they were entitled to be reinstated in the Bank's services as per the prevailing rules and conditions of the service with full back wages.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein filed a special leave petition against the said award which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to it to approach the High Court. The appellant filed writ petitions before the Karnataka high Court. By an order dated 30th November, 1998, the writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge where against writ appeals were filed by the appellant which were marked as W. A. Nos. 3700 and 5301 to 5310 of 1999 (Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v S. Mani and Others ). By reason of the impugned judgment dated 25th june, 2002 (Manager, Reserve Bank of India v S. Mani and Others ), the division Bench allowed the said appeal in part modifying the award of the Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge to the effect that the back wages be paid from 23rd July, 1993 instead of their respective dates of retrenchment. The Division Bench, however, gave liberty to the appellant to hold domestic enquiry against the respondents for the alleged misconduct committed by them. The Division Bench in issuing the aforesaid direction inter alia held that as the respondents were not regularised in services for the alleged misconduct of producing false certificates, the same would amount to stigma and loss of confidence of the appellant in them.

( 3 ) MR. Mahendra Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that as the respondent herein did not report for duty between December 1982 and March 1987, they must be held to have abandoned their services.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel would contend that the learned Tribunal committed a serious error of law insofar as it failed to take into consideration the fact that