R. Suresh Kumar, J.

All these five writ petitions are arising out of the common award dated 16.2.2005, given by the first respondent/Labour Court. Since the petitioners in these writ petitions have challenged the said award of the first respondent and the prayer herein are also one and the same, these writ petitions were grouped together and heard as a batch of petitions and being disposed of by this common order.

2. The common factors of all these cases, as culled out from the respective affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, are as follows:

(i) That the second respondent had been running canteens for its employees at the Head Office at Salem and in Attur, Johnsonpet, Rasipuram, Erumapalayam, Namakkal, Tiruchengode, Edappadi and Mettur.

(ii) There were about 125 employees engaged by the second respondent to work in these canteens which include the petitioners herein. These petitioners had joined in service as canteen employees between the year 1983 and 1987. Initially, a monthly consolidated wage at the rate of Rs. 5 per day was fixed and paid to these petitioners.

(iii) Though these petitioners had been working for some years ranging from 3 to 6 years, the second respondent, though the services of the petitioners were very much required, had not come forward to make these petitioners as the permanent employees. In other words, the services of the petitioners, though required to continue at the canteens run by the second respondent, the services had not been regularised for several years.

(iv) In this regard, the further case of the petitioners is that, even though, there was a 12(3) settlement under the Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter referred to as I.D. Act), dated 28.9.1989, to which, the second respondent is also a party, and by thus, the second respondent had been committed to confirming the services of the unconfirmed canteen employees retrospectively from the year 1986 or from the date of their initial engagement, the second respondent continued to practice the unfair labour practice by not confirming the services of the petitioners.

(v) While so, to the utter shock and dismay of the petitioners, the second respondent abruptly had disengaged from 01.3.1990, the services of the petitioners. Though the petitioners had completed more than 480 days of continuous service in the given period, without confirming their services, such abrupt disengagement was made. Further, before terminating the services of the petitioners, the second respondent Management did not comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 25 F and 25 N of the I.D. Act.

(vi) As the said provisions of the Act require the Management to give prior notice to the workmen and to get the permission of the appropriate Government and for payment of compensation, nothing had been followed by the second respondent and when this action on the part of the second respondent was questioned by the petitioners, no fruitful reply had come from the second respondent/Management.

(vii) Thereafter, though these petitioners had sent individual request to the second respondent/Management to take them back for the jobs at the canteens run by them, the said request of the petitioners had not been considered or acceded to.

(viii) Having aggrieved by the said inaction on the part of the second respondent/Management, the petitioners having found no alternative option, had approached this Court by filing writ petitions in the year 1990. Those writ petitions were dismissed by the order of this Court dated 20.1.1998 on the ground, that the petitioner's can seek remedy under the I.D. Act, by raising appropriate industrial dispute.

(ix) Pursuant to the said dismissal of the writ petitions, these petitioners had approached the first respondent/Labour court by raising industrial dispute, after conciliation proceedings ended in failure. Along with these petitioners, some more similarly placed workmen also raised similar ID before the first respondent. There were 23 workers inc