- (1.) Both the above-referred petitions are being taken up together for hearing. Since in both the petitions similar questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the instant petitions are that the petitioner-management is a Unit engaged in manufacturing sugar. Respondent No. 2 in both the writ petitions namely Polu Ram and Shamsher Singh, at one point of time, were its workmen. Both of them separately raised industrial dispute in the month of January 2000 by serving demand notices and thereby claimed their reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. Their plea was that since they had completed 240 days of service with the petitioner- management during the period 1992 to 1999, therefore, the termination of their services by the petitioner is bad. Their further grouse was that the petitioner had also retained persons junior to them after termination of their services. Their claims were contested by the petitioner more or less on the similar grounds. The stand of the petitioner-management was that they engaged the services of respondents as Mali (extra hand), as a daily wager and they were given the work, during the season, as and when available. It was further averred that the workmen stopped coming to their duties from 9.11.1999, therefore, due to their absence, alternative arrangement was made. It was also denied that the workmen had ever completed 240 days with them.
(3.) On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. There also the petitioner-management filed written statement on the same lines and controverted the averments made in the demand notice. Upon the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Both the parties led their respective evidence. Thereafter, on conclusion of proceedings, the Labour Court, vide the impugned awards dated 1.12.2005, passed separately qua workmen Polu and Shamsher, concluded that the services of workmen were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity the Act). Accordingly, it ordered their reinstatement with continuity of service. Respondent-workman Polu Ram, was granted back wages to the extent of 50% whereas the Labour Court awarded full back wages to respondent-workman Shamsher Singh.;