1. This is a common order on the above two petitions between the same parties which petitions have been, by the order dated 7 th March, 2013, directed to be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

2. Writ Petition No.76/2013 is directed against the award dated 1st April, 2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement of respondent no.1 with full backwages and continuity of service. Writ Petition No.114/2013 is directed against the award dated 11th December, 1998 of the Industrial Tribunal declaring that respondent no.1 along with eight others was a permanent workman of the petitioner with effect from 24 th February, 1995. The petitioner is a Mapusa Municipal Council.

3. The factual matrix of the two petitions is as under: Respondent no.1 was engaged as a daily wage labourer with effect from 20th May, 1985. Since respondent no.1 and eight others similarly employed had been continued in service as daily wage workers for more than four years and were being deprived of proper wages, along with other service benefits, the Goa Municipal Workers Union of which respondent no.1 and the others were members, raised a dispute regarding their regularization. By the order dated 15th September, 1989, the dispute came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal being reference no.67/1989. The petitioner through its Chief Officer and Director of Municipal Administration, Panaji-Goa were the respondents to the reference as employers. The petitioner filed its written statement in the reference on 26th March, 1990. During the pendency of the reference on 24th February, 1993, the petitioner appointed respondent no.1, and others, as sweeper/labourer on temporary basis with a probation period of two years. But her period of probation was neither extended on expiry of two years nor was her appointment confirmed.

4. In the reference the petitioner failed and neglected to appear before the Industrial Tribunal after filing its reply. Consequently, by the order dated 15th April, 1996 the Industrial Court directed for the reference to proceed for ex-parte hearing. Then by the order dated 11th December, 1998, the reference was answered in favour of the workers declaring the petitioner and seven others as permanent workmen from 24th February, 1995. The eighth workman was declared as permanent workman from 2nd April, 1995 and the ninth workman was held not entitled to be declared as a permanent workman. This order is sought to be challenged by the petitioners by Writ Petition No.114/2013 filed on 13 th February, 2013 i.e. 15 years after the same was passed. The petition has been filed despite the fact that the award has already been given effect to by absorbing the concerned workers as permanent workers, some of whom today stand retired on attaining the age of superannuation and some are still in service of the petitioner as permanent workmen. The prayers in the petition does not restrict the challenge to regularization of respondent no.1.

5. On 31st January, 1996, the petitioner issued a direction to respondent no.1 to join for special cleaning drive on 3rd February, 1996 in ward no.2 of Mapusa area. Respondent no.1 did not report to work from 1st February, 1996 until 16th February, 1996. According to respondent no.1 her absence was on account of illness whereas the petitioner alleges that respondent no.1 had feigned illness in order to avoid joining in the special cleaning drive. The petitioner alleged that respondent no.1 obtained a false medical certificate and abstained from work on the ground of sickness. She was therefore issued a memo dated 14th February, 1996 calling upon her to report to Goa Medical College on 20 th February, 1996 for her medical examination in order to countercheck and confirm the sickness claimed by her. On 16th February, 1996 when respondent no.1 sought to resume duty she was not permitted to do so. According to the petitioner the conduct on the part of respondent no.1 amounted to indiscipline. The