ARUN TANDON, J. ( 1 ) THESE all four writ petitions arise out of same award. One by the employers, being Writ petition No. 51468 of 2003 and others by the workmen, being Writ Petition No. 35586 of 2003, writ Petition No. 19855 of 2003 and Writ Petition Mo. 21461 of 2004. ( 2 ) SRI Vijay Ratan Agrawal Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vivek Ratan Agrawal, has been heard on behalf of the employer, while Sri K. P. Agrawal Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri hemant Kumar, has been heard on behalf of the workmen in all the petitions. ( 3 ) EMPLOYER Alstom Limited is a public limited company duly registered under the Companies act. The workmen were employed as workers in the employment of the company. Their services were terminated on various dates between 22. 9. 1997 to 20. 1. 1998 as per the details mentioned in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. The workmen raised industrial dispute against the aforesaid action of the employers. The dispute was referred for adjudication under Section 4k of the industrial Disputes Act, and was registered as Adjudication Case No. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21l, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of 2000 before the Labour Court UP. , Allahabad. All the aforesaid industrial disputes were clubbed together and have been decided under the common aware! dated 9. 8. 2002, which has been published on 20 th Februaiy, 2003. By means of the award, the Labour Court has directed payment of compensation to the workmen concerned in place of the reinstatement. It is against this award, the present writ petition has been filed. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the employers it is pointed out it at none of the workman had completed more than 240 days of continuous service. The workmen were casual employees and therefore violation of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act does not arises nor there was any occasion for any compensation being awarded in favour of the workmen by the Labour Court. It is submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that the workmen have been retrenched, is factually incorrect and is based on non-consideration of the fact that none of the workman has worked for more than 240 days, in a calendar year. It is submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that the workmen have been retrenched, is factually incorrect and is based on non-consideration of the fact that none of the workman has worked for more than 240 days, in a calendar year. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the workmen it is contended that the compensation awarded to the workmen was not on the ground of illegal retrenchment but on the ground that unfair Labour practice has been adopted by the employers. It is submitted that the Labour Court has held that the work, which was being taken by the employers, was permanent in nature, and only 1o deny regular service, the employers adopted an arbitrary attitude of offering work against permanent post on rotational basis between the workmen and therefore the Labour Court was justified in passing the award. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 1986 S C 132 (Para-7) and 2003 (4) S C-27. The award of the Labour Court has also been challenged by the workmen themselves by means of Writ Petition No. 19855 of 2003, which has been connected with this petition. ( 6 ) SO far as the writ petition filed on behalf of the workmen is concerned, it is submitted that the relief of compensation as granted by the Labour Court, despite recording a finding that there has been an unfair labour practice, is legally not: justified and the award to that extent is liable to be set aside. It is further stated that the presumption drawn by the Labour Court; that the workmen have not worked for 240 days is without any basis. ( 7 ) I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition. ( 8 ) FROM the pleadings of the parties and the award it is apparently clear that the workmen have hot completed 740 days service in the previous calendar year. Therefore, the applicability of section 6-N in the facts of the present case does not arises nor the counsel for the workmen has made an attempt to establish the right of the workmen on the ground of violation of Section 6-N before this Court. Therefore, the applicability of section 6-N in the facts of the present case does not arises nor the counsel for the workmen has made an attempt to establish the right of the workmen on the ground of violation of Section 6-N before this Court. ( 9 ) SO far as the issue of adoption of unfair labour practice by the employers is concerned, if entire case set up by the workmen is accepted, it would only mean that the employers had a requirement of certain number of employees in respect of permanent nature of work and instead of continuing the same set of employees, regularly the employers decided to take work on rotational basis from amongst the petitioners. ( 10 ) THUS the issue/which should have been considered by the Labour Court in the facts of the case, was as to how many workmen were actually required to discharge the work, which was permanent in nature, against which the petitioners were appointed on rotational basis. The labour Court was also required to decide as to which of the employees were appointed at the first instance as workman for performing the permanent work inasmuch as it is only against such workmen who were appointed first that the allegations of unfair labour practice, having been adopted by the employers, could have been sustained and the relief granted. The aforesaid observation has been made in the back ground that if some of the petitioner were appoirted after the earlier appointees were illegally refused work, the appointments of subsequent employees itself become illegal. ( 11 ) FROM the award of the Labour Court it is apparently clear that the Labour Court has not appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has failed to record any finding in respect of the issue. Consequently, it cannot be said in the facts of the case that in respect of all the workmen the management has adopted an unfair labour practice so as to entitle them the relief of reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes Act. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that if the employers have: adopted an unfair labour practice, it would render the entire actions of the employers as illegal inasmuch as unfair labour practice vitiates all the actions of the employers. Reference-AIR1996 S C 132 (Para-7 ). This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that if the employers have: adopted an unfair labour practice, it would render the entire actions of the employers as illegal inasmuch as unfair labour practice vitiates all the actions of the employers. Reference-AIR1996 S C 132 (Para-7 ). ( 12 ) IT is needless to point out that the issue, as to whether the employers adopted unfair labour practice, must be determined by the Labour Court on the evidence to be lead and on material being brought on record to establish as to whether appointment to the workmen on rotational basis was bona fide or not. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY the award of the Labour Court is hereby quashed. The Labour Court is directed to decide the Adjudication Case Nos. 69/1999, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,-24, 25 and 26 of 2000 in the light of the observations made, preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Labour Court. ( 14 ) SO far as the writ petition filed by the workmen are concerned, it is not necessary for this court to enter into the merits of the contention raised inasmuch as the award of the Labour Court itself has been set aside by this Court and the matter has been remanded for fresh adjudication of the dispute in the light of the observations made. It is therefore provided that it is open to the workmen to raise such please supported by such legal preposition of law for the purposes of establishing their right for reinstatement. The present writ petition is also accordingly disposed of. . .