- (1.)HEARD the arguments of Mrs. Sudarsana Sundar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in each of the writ petition and perused the records.
(2.)THESE writ petitions are filed by the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board [for short, 'TWAD Board'] against the common Award dated 27.02.1998 passed by the second respondent Labour Court.
It is seen that W.P. No. 15111 of 1998 is filed against the Award passed in I.D. No. 29 of 1997 where the first respondent is one K. Subramaniam. W.P. No. 15112 of 1998 is directed against the Award in I.D. No. 30 of 1997 where the first respondent is one Iyenthurai. W.P. No. 15113 of 1998 is directed against the Award in I.D. No. 31 of 1997 where the first respondent is one Jokkupaiyan. In the common Award dated 27.02.1998, the second respondent Labour Court held that the termination of the three workmen was illegal and directed the petitioner to reinstate them but without backwages.

These three workmen were employed as NMR workers. In respect of I.D. No. 29 of 1997, the case of the first respondent was that he had worked from 23.12.1987 to 07.7.1989 with breaks which were deliberately given by the petitioner Management. In the counter statement filed before the Labour Court, the petitioner had admitted the following spells of employment put in by the first respondent. (a) 28.11.1989 to 29.12.1989 (b) 04.01.1990 to 29.3.1990 (c) 05.4.1990 to 11.4.1990 (d) 08.5.1990 to 31.5.1990 (e) 19.7.1991 to 28.12.1991 In the same way, the first respondents in the other two writ petitions have also given the details of the employment.

(3.)THE Labour Court had also, as a matter of fact, found that these workmen have completed 240 days of service within a period of 12 months by including weekly off and festival holidays. THE contention of the petitioner was that no worker had put in 240 days in any calendar year and no one had worked beyond 480 days in two calendar years to get the benefit of T.N. Act 46 of 1981. Each time when the first respondent in each of the petitions were appointed, it was a specific appointment, which also came to an end as found in the terms of contract.
The Labour Court held that in view of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, [for short, 'I.D. Act'], it would be a retrenchment. It also held that the action of the petitioner in granting deliberate breaks was an act of "unfair labour practice" and since they had worked for more than 240 days within a period of 12 calender months, their termination ought to have been brought to an end by following the conditions precedent found in Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. The Labour Court also held that since the disputes were raised after several months, they were not eligible for any backwages. The Labour Court also took note of the settlement dated 08.8.1996 reached between the petitioner and the workmen under Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act (marked as Ex. W.4) wherein similarly placed workmen were reinstated. It is against this Award, the present writ petitions have been filed.