The burden of proof lies with the petitioners to establish continuous employment for more than 240 days as required by Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the soundness of the impugned common award passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.Nos.79 to 85, 124 and 125 of 2000 dated 23.4.2004, to quash the same insofar as the first respondent has negatived the claim of the petitioners for reinstatement with continuity of service along with backwages and all other attendant benefits.

2. Mr.K.Mohanamurali, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when all the writ petitioners were engaged by the second respondent Management as casual workers on various dates between 5.10.94 and 24.12.94, they were paid with a daily wage of Rs.80 to Rs.85. While so, all of a sudden, in the month of May 1998, the services of the petitioners were terminated without assigning any reason. As the Management did not follow or comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" in short), although the petitioners worked continuously for more than 240 days in the preceding one year, the Axle India Workers Union, which is championing the cause of majority workmen, objected to the said practice of engaging casual and contract workmen and also pressed for regularisation of their service. Accepting the objection made by the Axle India Workers Union, the second respondent Management reinstated all the petitioners in service in the month of March, 1999. Ironically, within a month thereafter, the second respondent again orally terminated the services of the petitioners erroneously without complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Act. When the union intervened with protest against the unjust termination of the petitioners, the second respondent stated that there has been a recession in the automobile industry, therefore, they were unable to continue the services of the petitioners. At the same time, the second respondent also announced a voluntary retirement scheme for the permanent workmen. Even though the union advised the workmen not to opt for the voluntary retirement scheme, the second respondent offered a substantial amount as compensation to some of the casual workmen also and finally the second respondent entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Act with the individual workman for leaving the company on payment of compensation. Accepting the settlement, out of 56 workmen, 47 workmen accepted the compensation. However, 9 of them refused to accept the settlement reached under Section 18(1) with the second respondent Management. As they refused to accept the Section 18(1) settlement, the second respondent terminated their service. Therefore, challenging their non-employment, the petitioners raised industrial disputes under Section 2-A(1) of the Act. When the issue was taken up for conciliation by the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Chennai, it was specifically represented before the Conciliation Officer that the petitioners had worked for more than 480 days in two calendar years, therefore, they had become entitled for regularisation in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981. But the second respondent adopted a stiff and adamant attitude, as a result, the conciliation ended in failure and the matter was brought before the I Additional Labour Court in I.D.Nos.79 to 85, 124 and 125 of 2000.

3. It was further stated that since the issue raised in all the aforementioned industrial disputes was one and the same, both parties filed a joint memo for letting common evidence and for joint trial of all the disputes. Accordingly, two witnesses were examined as W.W.1 and W.W.2 and Ex.W1, copy of the petition given by the petitioners along with the letter from the petitioner union to the management dated 28.6.91 and Ex.W2, copy of the enquiry proceedings dated 3.5.2001 in respect of W.W.1 and Thiru Rammohan were marked to support the case of the workmen. From the m