JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petitions have been filed against the Award of the Labour Court dated 12-9-1994 passed in Claim Cases No. 97/1997 and 15/1992, by which the claims of respondent-workmen Narendra Joshi and Hari Shanker had been allowed, they were ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of service. Since the evidence led before the Labour Court is common and the Labour Court had passed the common Award, therefore, both these writ petitions are disposed of by the common judgment. 2. The Labour Court had to decide the issue: whether the termination of the services of the respondent-workmen, vide orders dated 9-1-1990 and 21-10-1989 were valid or not ? The respondent-workmen had filed the claim petitions before the Labour Court alleging that they had worked for several years and used to clean the vehicles owned by the petitioner Corporation, however their services had been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as "the I.D. Act"). 3. The petitioner Corporation did not accept the claim made by the respondent-workmen. It was denied that respondent-workmen had ever worked with it and, thus, the question of completing 240 days' service in one year if counted backward from the date of termination, did not arise. In support of their submissions, the respondent-workmen examined themselves and, also, examined two other persons, viz, Shri Avadesh Singh Chauhan and Shri Amba Lal. However, the petitioner Corporation examined Mr. Sayyed Shahid Shokat, who was the Manager (Operation) of the Corporation. The petitioner's representative has submitted categorically that no person is being employed in the Corporation orally nor his services can be terminated orally. He further deposed on oath, in his affidavit, that even for employing a person on daily wages, written order is necessary and in respect of the said workmen, the Corporation had never issued any appointment order nor had they ever worked in the Corporation. In the cross-examination, Mr. Shokat has deposed that he was the Manager and all the work are done under his control in the Workshop - whether it is administrative or of any other nature and he did not have the power to keep anybody on employment or to remove him from service, and no one had ever given appointment to the respondent-workmen. 4. Shokat has deposed that he was the Manager and all the work are done under his control in the Workshop - whether it is administrative or of any other nature and he did not have the power to keep anybody on employment or to remove him from service, and no one had ever given appointment to the respondent-workmen. 4. The witnesses examined by the respondent-workmen were, also, cross-examined by the representative of the Corporation. In his cross-examination, respondent-workman Mr. Narendra Joshi has categorically stated that he used to sign once in a month. He was employed to clean the vehicles; he was not asked to put his signatures daily and was removed by Mr. Babu Lal Mistry. Mr. Avadesh Singh Chauhan, who appeared in support of the case of the respondent- workmen, has stated that he was working as the Mechanic (Grade II) and stated that in this in his cross-examination that Naredra Joshi had worked till 91-1-1990 and he remembered the date and that is why he had stated so. He did not know from what date they had started working. He further stated that he had been given the appointment in writing, he did not know why the respondent-workmen had not been given the order of appointment/employment in writing. Mr. Narendra Joshi used to clean the vehicles and greasing them. He, however, did not know how many other persons were working on daily wages basis along with them but there were four-five other persons. He used to get, as a Helper in 1982, the salary of Rs. 700-750/- per month. He further stated that there was no record of the daily wages employees. The workmen used to put their signatures in the register, put on the gate, the time of their entry. When new persons start coming, the record of old people is thrown away. 5. Similarly, Mr. Amba Lal has stated that in his cross-examination that he had seen the respondent-workmen working. Narendra Joshi used to clean the vehicles and Hari Shanker used to stitch the seats and they used to get Rs. 150/- per month. They were removed in his presence from service by Shri Surendra Singh, M.E. 6. The Labour Court had considered the aforesaid deposition and recorded the finding that Mr. Narendra Joshi used to clean the vehicles and Hari Shanker used to stitch the seats and they used to get Rs. 150/- per month. They were removed in his presence from service by Shri Surendra Singh, M.E. 6. The Labour Court had considered the aforesaid deposition and recorded the finding that Mr. Shokat, who appeared and got himself examined on behalf of the Corporation and deposed on oath by filing his affidavit that he was the Manager (Operation), was not the Manager but was merely a clerk and he had been sent to the Labour Court just to complete the formalities. The aforesaid inference was drawn by the Labour Court only on the ground that he stated in his statement that he was not knowing the name of the Regional Officer and further he had no information about various correspondence of the Department. The Labour Court has further recorded a finding that in view of the above, his evidence was not worth considering and the same was, therefore, disbelieved. The depositions of the witnesses produced by the respondent- workmen were believed though the Labour Court did not consider it proper to reconcile the statements made by them as Narendra Joshi himself has deposed that he was removed by Mr. Babu Lal Mistry while Mr. Amba Lal has stated that their services were terminated, in his presence, by Mr. Surendra Singh, M.E. The Labour Court failed to appreciate that if witness Amba Lal and Avadhesh Singh Chauhan had been given the appointment letters in writing, they were also, working on daily wages, why the appointment letters were not issued to the respondent-workmen and if they were getting Rs. 750/- per month, why the respondent-workmen were paid only Rs. 150/- to Rs. 170/- per month, and it also did not consider the statement made by the Manager Mr. Shokat that no person can either be appointed or removed from service orally. The Labour Court has erred in disbelieving the statement made by Mr. Shokat even to the extent that he could not be the Manager and was merely a clerk. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is perverse. There was no material before the Labour Court to record this Finding. It had not been the case of the respondent-workmen that Mr. Shokat even to the extent that he could not be the Manager and was merely a clerk. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is perverse. There was no material before the Labour Court to record this Finding. It had not been the case of the respondent-workmen that Mr. Shokat was merely a Clerk and even if he was a Clerk, there was no justification for the Labour Court to hold that he had been sent only to complete the formalities in the case and his statement could not be believed. The Labour Court has not given any cogent reasons to disbelieve the statement made by Mr. Shokat. 7. In view of the above, I come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse and cannot be sustained in the eye of Law. However, at the same time, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the respondent-workmen and the witnesses produced by them, though there are some material contradictions in their deposition. Thus, in the fitness of the circumstances of the cases it is desirable that the impugned Awards be modified to serve the interest of both the parties. In the special facts and circumstances of the case and to do justice with the parties, it is desirable that the respondent-workmen may, also be rehabilitated. Thus, in view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of and the following directions are issued:- (1) the respondent-workmen shall not be entitled to claim any relief in pursuance to their past services, if there were any; (2) the petitioner, Corporation will enrol the respondent-workmen for training under the Scheme and they shall be entitled to get stipend admissible under the Scheme; and (3) after successful completion of the training, the petitioner- Corporation will provide the respondent-workmen a suitable employment. Order accordingly. *******