Judgment :- P. Sathasivam, J. Aggrieved by the common award of the Labour Court, Madurai, dated 17.5.1993 in I.D. Nos. 680 and 684 of 1990, Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Limited has filed the above writ petitions. According to the petitioner, it is a State Transport Undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Apart from permanent staff for running the business of passenger transport, they would engage persons on casual daily basis for miscellaneous work of sweeping and cleaning and pay them for the work done by them. No regular time of work is fixed and the petitioner has no supervisory control over such persons. The second respondent in both the writ petitions was one such person who were engaged in casual daily basis during the year 1986 for cleaning the toilets, rest house, etc., at the Periyar bus stand. Initially, they were paid Rs. 10 per day and later on the amount was revised to Rs. 20 per day. After the employment ceased, the second respondent in both cases raised disputes about their non-employment from 10.1.1990, which resulted in I.D. Nos. 680 of 1990 and 684 of 1990. Before the Labour Court, on the side of the workman - Paulpandi, second respondent in W.P. No. 13039 of 1994 was examined as W.W. 1 and Exs. W-1 to W-9 marked. On the other hand, on the side of the Management-Transport Corporation, no one was examined and no document was also placed in support of their stand. The Labour Court, after framing necessary issues and after accepting the case of the sweepers, passed an award for reinstatement with services monetary benefits. Against the said award, the Transport Corporation has preferred the above writ petitions. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as second respondent-workman in both cases.Mr. R. Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner-Management, after taking me through the impugned common award of the Labour Court, would contend that their application under S. 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintainable. He also contended that the Labour Court committed an error in relying on Ex. W-1 as well as W-7, since both are not applicable to the case of the sweepers. He further contended that in the absence of regular post, the services of the sweepers cannot be regularised and put them in the time scale of pay. He also contended that the Labour Court committed an error in relying on Ex. W-1 as well as W-7, since both are not applicable to the case of the sweepers. He further contended that in the absence of regular post, the services of the sweepers cannot be regularised and put them in the time scale of pay. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent would contend that in view of the fact that both the sweepers were doing the work regularly for 3 years and in the absence of any contra evidence on the side of the management, the Labour Court is justified in granting the relief as claimed; accordingly prayed for dismissal of both the writ petitions. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is the grievance of the 2nd Respondent in both the writ petitions that though they were working as sweepers in the offices and toilets attached to the Transport Corporation in Periyar bus-stand at Madurai, all of a sudden, in 1990, they were not permitted to attend their work. On the other hand, it is the case of the Management that in the absence of any separate post and of the fact that they never appointed any one as sweepers permanently, considering the nature of work to be performed, the claim of the sweepers have to be rejected. I have already stated that before the Labour Court, the Corporation has not let in oral evidence and also produced documents in support of their stand. I have already referred to the assertion made by both these workmen and the nature of the work being performed by them both in the office and in the toilets of the Corporation situated in Madurai Central bus-stand. No doubt, before the Labour Court, the workmen very much relied on G.O.Ms. No. 2082, Labour and Employment Department, dated 19.9.1988 which has been marked as Ex. W-1. By pointing out the said Government Order, it was contended that no contract labour could be engaged for sweeping and cleaning the toilets in the establishment/factories of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice that though the said Government order was confirmed by this Court, ultimately it was quashed by the Supreme Court in L.&T. Mc. Neil Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice that though the said Government order was confirmed by this Court, ultimately it was quashed by the Supreme Court in L.&T. Mc. Neil Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu. In such a circumstance, the notification of the Government cannot be accepted that the sweeping and cleaning process in their office and toilets at Periyar Central Bus-Stand, Madurai is a seasonal one. I have already referred to the statement of both the sweepers that they were doing the same work from 1987 for a period of 3 years and in support of that, they also produced vouchers/entries duly signed by the officers of the Transport Corporation. This is clear from Exs. W-2 to W-6. It is not clear the reason for non-examination of any one of the officers highlighting their stand and disproving the case of the sweepers.With regard to Ex. W-7, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing my attention to certain clauses therein, would contend that the same is not applicable to the case of the sweepers. He also contended that in the absence of a post, the Management cannot be forced to regularise the services of the casuals, for which he relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Mahatma Phule Agricultural University V. Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union, 2001 III CLR 4 SC as well as judgment of mine reported in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Union v. T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd., 2001 LLN 794. After going through the factual position in those cases, I am of the view that both the decisions are not applicable to the claim made by the sweepers in the cases on hand. Admittedly, in 2001 LLN 794, that matter in issue relates to regularisation of seasonal employees engaged by the Civil Supplies Corporation. As already referred to by me, the Pandian Roadways Corporation is having their office with toilets in the Periyar Bus-stand at Madurai for the benefit of their staff members and officers as well as crew members. In such a circumstance, it cannot be said that sweeping the office rooms and cleaning the toilets are not regular work and that without manning any one, the same can be done. In such a circumstance, it cannot be said that sweeping the office rooms and cleaning the toilets are not regular work and that without manning any one, the same can be done. Based on the materials placed before it, the Labour Court has correctly concluded that in order to avoid payment of salary to these sweepers in the time scale of pay, the Management forced them to execute an agreement which necessitated them to approach the Labour Court for necessary relief. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has also brought to my notice an order passed by me in Pandian Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. Principal Labour Court, Madurai and others, W.P. No. 5016, dated 1.9.1999, wherein I have confirmed the award of the Labour Court directing the management to pay salary to the workmen there in the time scale with effect from 1.6.1986. In that case, the workmen concerned were not appointed on regular basis and they were asked to clean the buses as and when they arrive at their depot. After considering the abundant factual materials placed by the workmen, and the interest of convenience and safety of the passengers of the bus, the Labour Court directed the management for regularising the services of the workmen concerned. The said conclusion has been confirmed by me in the said writ petition. The conclusion arrived at in that case is also applicable to the cases on hand.In the light of what is stated above, particularly the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Labour Court and in the absence of any other contra evidence on the side of the Management, I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court; consequently both the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. All connected W.M.Ps., are closed. Writ Petitions dismissed.