The work of the workmen was found to be of a permanent nature, and they were not considered casual workmen, entitling them to reinstatement.

1. The appeal is against the order of a learned judge who dismissed in limine the appellant's writ petition to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal (Ext. P ). The issues raised for adjudication were: 'T Lockout of the factory by the management with effect from 1-2-1974

2. Denial of employment to 6 persons: (1) U. A. Aahmedkutty (2) C.Chandran; (3) C. Aboobacker; (4) T. Kunhikuttan; (5) T. Sukumaran; (o) A. Komu

3. The claims of other casual workers; if any

4. The suspension of 6 workers "'

2. The relevant discussion on these issues will be found in Para.35 and 36 of the award which, for convenience and to do justice to the argument of the appellant, we shall reproduce fully. There are two sets of paragraphs each of them numbered as 35 and 36 and we are re-producing the two sets of paragraphs (viz the four paragraphs in all).

"35 Issue No. 2:-Union No.1 sponsor the case of these workers. They say that these persons were engaged in loading and unloading work as casual workers for about 3 years prior to the dispute. In August, 1973 the Union submitted a charter of demands and they demanded confirmation of these workers. This is W1 dated 16-8-1973. Demand No. 2 refers to these 6 persons. The union wanted the management to make them permanent employee? giving them all benefits. There were a number of conciliation conferences, WW4 speaks about this. There was no settlement and while this conciliation was pending the management denied employment to these persons with effect from 24-1-74 Representations were made about this to the management but there was no use. As a retaliatory step the management suspended the office bearers of the union. This resulted in a strike. The Union's case is that this work is regularly available in this factory and these persons were doing this till they were denied employment. W.W.1, W.W.2 and the union secretary say that this permanent work is available with the management and that was being done by these workers as temporary workers. The management says that this is a work available on a causual basis. It was being done by the workers in mixing and certain other sections. When they had enough work the management used to call these persons and others on a casual basis. This work will be available only when lorries come with raw materials. Prior to this this was being done by a contractor through his workers and for some time lorry owners used to get their own workers to unload articles.

36: The Management says that this work was available only very rarely. Mwl admits that they used to get vouchers for work done by the casual workers. There must be accounts also. If these accounts are produced naturally that would have shown the period for which they were employed or the duration of their employment. They are not produced here. If work was only available on such irregular intervals the management could have during the period of over 5 months when the conciliation was pending convinced the union or the conciliation officer about the nature of work. They have not done that. It is an admitted fact that presently they are employing workers in mixing and their departments to do this work. It is also said that sometimes they detain lorries if they arrive at night time, to unload till the workers in the first shift report for duty. This only shows that the work that was being done by these workers is of a permanent nature. It may be available only during irregular intervals. But the facts would show that these persons have been doing this for about 3 years immediately prior to this dispute. Hence they are entitled to be reinstated. They are to be given the job as they were being given prior to this dispute. They are not entitled for back wages.

35. Issue No. 3-Union No. I does not refer to this issue in their first statement. It is mainly a case of unions 2 to 5. These unions would say that the work of loading and unloading is being done through workers whose names are not mentioned in the muster rol