ORDER : K. Chandru, J. The writ petition is filed by the Management, seeking to challenge a common Award passed by the first respondent Labour Court, Salem in I.D. Nos. 348 of 2003 and 361 to 364 of 2003 dated 11.10.2007. By the aforesaid Award, the Labour Court held that since the workmen have completed 240 days of service, denial of employment was not justified and they are entitled to reinstatement into service with continuity of service and back wages. The writ petition was admitted on 9.4.2008. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay on condition that the Management deposits entire back wages as ordered by the Labour Court within eight weeks and should also comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the I.D. Act and to pay the arrears of salary from the date of the Award till the date of the order and continue to pay the same. The workmen were directed to file an affidavit that they were not gainfully employed. 2. As against the said interim order, the Management preferred writ appeal being W.A. No. 1027 of 2008. The Division Bench of this Court found that there was no illegality in the order passed by the learned Judge. The allegation that Management had offered appointment to the workmen was not accepted by the Division Bench. The allegation that the workmen were working in alternative places was also a question of fact and that was not pleaded before the learned Judge and therefore, the Bench refused to go in to the said issue and the writ appeal was dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2008. 3. Since the Management did not deposit the back wages, this Court by an order dated 20.11.2008 vacated the interim stay. Therefore, the workmen filed M.P. No. 1 of 2009, seeking for a direction to pay the arrears of 17-B wages. In that application, since the non-employment of the workmen was disputed by the Management and the Management was willing to take back the workmen for employment during the pendency of the writ petition, this Court directed the workmen to join the service of the Management and directed them to appear before the Proprietor of the Management on 18.1.2010. The petition for payment u/s 17-B was directed to be posted along with the writ petition vide order dated 8.1.2010. 4. The petition for payment u/s 17-B was directed to be posted along with the writ petition vide order dated 8.1.2010. 4. The workmen also filed an application in M.P. No. 2 of 2009 seeking for a direction to pay back wages in the absence of any interim stay, being made available to the Management and no orders have been passed in that application. 5. In response to the allegation that the workmen were employed elsewhere, they have filed independent reply affidavits denying the said allegation. In the reply affidavit filed by S. Murugesan, the second respondent, it was stated that he was never employed under the management of granite company run by one Murali of Mettur. He was only going for agricultural work which was not regular. In the reply affidavit of R. Kumar, the third respondent, it was stated that he was never employed under M. Kalipatti Panchayat as a full time tank Operator and he works only as a part-time operator and was paid fixed salary of Rs. 580/-. P. Saravanan, the 4th respondent in his reply affidavit has stated that he was never employed under the management of B.S. Granite firm as alleged by the Management and he was only going for some agricultural work intermittently. K. Selvaraj, the 5th respondent in his reply affidavit has stated that he was never employed under the management of Nalini Pipes, Mettur and he occasionally go for painting work which is not regular. The 6th respondent, A. Palanivel, in his reply affidavit has stated that he was never employed by granite firm run by Murali of Mettur. He was going for cleaning work in lorries which is not a regular work and it depends upon booking of loads for the lorries and he is not attached to any particular owner. 6. The workmen in each of the dispute alleging that they were denied employment with effect from 30.4.2003 raised a dispute u/s 2-A of the I.D. Act. The conciliation Officer as he could not bring about any mediation gave his failure report. On the strength of the failure report, the contesting respondents filed individual claim statements before the first respondent Labour Court. Those claim statements were registered as I.D. Nos. 348 of 2003 and 361 to 364 of 2003 and notice was issued to the petitioner Management. The conciliation Officer as he could not bring about any mediation gave his failure report. On the strength of the failure report, the contesting respondents filed individual claim statements before the first respondent Labour Court. Those claim statements were registered as I.D. Nos. 348 of 2003 and 361 to 364 of 2003 and notice was issued to the petitioner Management. The Management filed identical counter statements stating that their industry was a small scale industry. The workmen were engaged as temporary casual labourer and depending upon the exigencies of work, they will be given employment. The workmen having obtained employment elsewhere have abandoned their jobs. The petitioner Management is only seasonal industry and depending upon the orders, they used to cut granite. The workmen had not completed 240 days of service in 12 calendar months. The obligation to prove that they had worked for 240 days solely vest with the workmen. 7. Before the Labour Court, a joint trial was conducted and evidence was recorded in I.D. No. 348 of 2003. The workmen S. Murugesan (R2) and A. Palanivel (R6) were examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. On their side 17 documents were filed and marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-17. On the side of the Management, P. Saravanan, M. Rabi and P. Ganesan were examined as R.W. 1 to R.W. 3 and on their side, 13 documents were filed and marked as Exhibits R-1 to R-13. 8. The Labour Court on the basis of the materials placed before it came to the conclusion that as per Exhibit P-16, the workmen in each of the ID have completed more than 240 days and Exhibit P-16 is for the period from 21.12.2001 to 4.3.2003. Thus Exhibit P-16 is not the attendance register but loose sheets furnished to each workmen for getting salary at the end of the week. The evidence of one Saravanan examined as R.W. 1 showed that he was the one who had initialled the document as Manager. Therefore, the said document cannot be rejected and it is not created for the purpose of this case. Similarly Exhibit P-17 loose delivery challan bounded was filed for proving that some of the workmen on the direction of the Management accompanied the goods for transportation. Since Exhibit P-17 did not contain the name of any of the workmen, the Labour Court held that it is not valid for proving employment. Similarly Exhibit P-17 loose delivery challan bounded was filed for proving that some of the workmen on the direction of the Management accompanied the goods for transportation. Since Exhibit P-17 did not contain the name of any of the workmen, the Labour Court held that it is not valid for proving employment. The theory of abandonment of the workmen was also rejected by the Labour Court. Similarly, the contention that the workmen in I.D. No. 362 of 2003 resigned his job and received his legal benefits was also not accepted. Since it has been proved beyond doubt that the workmen have worked for more than 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months, the Labour Court held that the workmen are entitled for normal relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. 9. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Management that Exhibit P-16 cannot be accepted as it is not maintained as per the provisions of the Factories Act and it was not verified by the officials of the Labour Department. The Labour Court rejected Exhibits R-1 to R-3 on the ground that the Management had not produced the same before the Conciliation Officer. Hence, the Labour Court ought to have applied the same yardstick in evaluating Exhibit P-16. The allegation that the workmen had worked for 240 days was not proved and their employment was only casual. The Management had never terminated their services and mere was no severance of employment. It was also alleged that they were gainfully employed elsewhere. 10. The contention of the Management that the workmen were gainfully employed cannot be accepted in the light of the reply affidavits filed by the workmen. The evidential value of Exhibit P-16 also cannot be impeached for the reasons set out by the Management. 11. Mr. S. Raveendran, learned counsel appearing for the Management referred to the judgment of this Court in Management of RAS Theatre Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another, (2004) 3 LLJ 511 for contending that if there are repeated offers before the Conciliation Officer and before the Labour Court asking the workmen to join duty and they had deliberately refrained from doing so, the attitude of the workmen cannot be appreciated. 12. He also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. 12. He also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workman, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2007) 1 SCC 408 for contending that a casual labourer cannot have a right of reinstatement especially, when the company is a sick company and the question of appointing them as casual workmen will not arise. The learned counsel also filed a memo stating that the sales turn over of the company for 3 years starting from 2007-2010 showed that the company continuously suffered loss. 13. Per contra, Mr. S. Ayyathurai, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 6 referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2003) 4 SCC 579 for contending that in that case, the Court granted Rs. 15 lakhs towards back wages even when it is held that there was loss of confidence against the workmen, who was employed on temporary basis. 14. He also referred to an unreported judgment of this Court in Flakt (India) Limited v. Presiding Officer (W.P. Nos. 16810 of 2008 and batch cases dated 19.3.2012 for contending that the Court granted compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs by taking into account the wages payable u/s 17-B also. This is without prejudice to the submission that the Award does not call for any interference and in case this Court grants relief by way of back wages, these guidelines should be taken note of. 15. The learned counsel also filed a memo to show that each of the worker from the dates of their non-employment were each entitled to get around Rs. 3 lakhs to 6 lakhs upto the year 2010. 16. In the light of the rival contentions, the only question to be decided is whether the impugned Common Award calls for any interference. 17. In the present case, appreciation of Exhibit P-16 and the consequential finding that the workmen had worked more than 240 days cannot be disbelieved that too in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even assuming that the workman were employed for more than 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months, it did not automatically result in the workmen getting the relief of reinstatement with back wages as held by the Supreme Court Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353 . Even assuming that the workman were employed for more than 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months, it did not automatically result in the workmen getting the relief of reinstatement with back wages as held by the Supreme Court Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Vs. M.C. Joshi, (2007) 9 SCC 353 . In that case, the Court held that since appointments were not made in terms of the statutory rules, compensation was directed to be paid. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the decision Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban, (2007) 9 SCC 748 wherein the Supreme Court held that relief of reinstatement cannot be automatically granted and compensation was directed to be paid. In both cases, the Supreme Court directed compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to be paid to the workman in lieu of their claim. 18. In the present case, though the Division Bench of this Court upheld the direction to pay the last drawn wages in terms of Section 17-B and there has been a complaint that it has not been paid and applications were filed for the payment, this Court by an order dated 8.1.2010 directed the workman to report for work and relegated the question of payment of wages u/s 17-B along with the main writ petition. Hence, this Court is constrained to order Rs. 75,000/- towards payment of wages u/s 17-B apart from a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to be paid towards compensation. Accordingly, the writ petition stands partly allowed. The common Award of the Labour Court in I.D. Nos. 348 of 2003 and 361 to 364 of 2003 dated 11.10.2007 stands modified with a direction to the petitioner Management to pay each of the workmen viz.., R2 to R6 a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the amount, the workmen will not have any further claim in respect of their non-employment. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.