ORDER : 1. Since, both the writ petitions arise out of the common award of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai in I.D. Nos. 74, 78 and 86 of 1986 and I.D. Nos. 1, 9, 14 of 1987 dated 24.04.2002, they were heard together and they are disposed of by way of this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this order as per the array of parties in W.P. No. 449 of 2003. The petitioner in W.P. No. 449 of 2003 is the Management of a Bank known as Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. The respondents 2 to 7 in W.P. No. 449 of 2003 were all engaged as daily wagers as against the leave vacancies by the petitioner Management. According to the respondents 2 to 7, they were working under the petitioner Management from the year 1979 onwards. The respondents 2 to 7 further claim that they have worked for more than 240 days under the petitioner Management and so, they could not be retrenched without following Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. But, the services of the respondents 2 to 7 were all terminated by the petitioner Management with effect from 01.08.1985. Challenging the same, the respondents 2 to 7 raised the above Industrial Disputes in I.D. Nos. 74, 78 and 86 of 1986 and I.D. Nos. 1, 9, 14 of 1987 before the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai. 2. In the claim statements filed by the respondents 2 to 7, they had reiterated their stand that they have worked for more than 240 days continuously from the year 1979 onwards and without following the mandatory provision contained in Section 25F of the Act, they had been terminated by the petitioner Management from service and therefore, they are entitled for reinstatement in service and also continuity of service and backwages. 3. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner Management contended that the respondents 2 to 7 did not work for more than 240 days continuously as it was claimed by the respondents 2 to 7. It was further contended that the respondents 2 to 7 were engaged only as daily wagers as against the leave vacancies and here-fore, they were not entitled for the benefits of Section 25F of the said Act. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the workmen, two witnesses were examined and 14 documents were exhibited. It was further contended that the respondents 2 to 7 were engaged only as daily wagers as against the leave vacancies and here-fore, they were not entitled for the benefits of Section 25F of the said Act. 4. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the workmen, two witnesses were examined and 14 documents were exhibited. On the side of the Management, one witness was examined and as many as 44 documents were exhibited. Having considered all the above, the Tribunal passed a common award on 13.11.1989 holding that the termination of the respondents/ workmen from services was justified and accordingly, all the Industrial Disputes were dismissed. 5. Challenging the same, a writ petition was filed by the workmen in W.P. No. 17758 of 1990. By order dated 09.12.1998, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the common award and remanded the matter back to the file of the Tribunal with a direction to restore the proceeding on file and hear the parties by giving an opportunity to them for adducing additional evidence, if any and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with law in the light of the materials available on record and on the basis of the principles propounded by this Court as well as the Apex Court. 6. Challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner Management filed a Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 1564 of 1999. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 12.10.2000 dismissed the said writ appeal. Thereafter, the Industrial Tribunal again took up the Industrial Disputes for enquiry. 7. At that juncture, the workmen filed Miscellaneous Applications in M.A. Nos. 38 to 43 of 2001 before the Industrial Tribunal to send for the following documents:- (1) The Attendance registers (original) instead of xerox copy of the Exhibit M.23 that has been marked before the Tribunal. (2) The register of wages, debit cash voucher in respect of the petitioner for the period from 1979 to 1985. (3) List of persons appointed in the post of peons, sub-staff, clerks from January 1986 till date. 8. The Industrial Tribunal by a common order dated 10.09.2001, allowed all the applications and directed the petitioner Management to produce all the above documents. That order of the Tribunal had become final. (3) List of persons appointed in the post of peons, sub-staff, clerks from January 1986 till date. 8. The Industrial Tribunal by a common order dated 10.09.2001, allowed all the applications and directed the petitioner Management to produce all the above documents. That order of the Tribunal had become final. Thereafter, during the further proceedings, before the Tribunal, on the side of the Management one Mr. B. Sudakaran was examined as M.W. 2 and Exhibit 45 series was marked. On the side of the workmen, no further witness was examined however Exhibits W.15 to W.21 were marked. Further, Exhibit C.1 was marked as Court documents. 9. Having considered the above oral as well as documentary evidences, the Tribunal passed a common award on 24.04.2002 in I.D. Nos. 74, 78 and 86 of 1986 and I.D. Nos. 1, 9, 14 of 1987, wherein, the Tribunal has held that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days and thus, the retrenchment of their services without following Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not valid. On the said finding, the Tribunal directed the petitioner Management to reinstate the workmen in service but in their original position. It was further directed that as and when there occurs leave vacancy, the names of the workmen in all these Industrial Disputes should be duly considered despite the fact that they had higher qualification to hold the post and in that event, the workmen should not deny to hold the post. Challenging the said award, the petitioner Management has come up with W.P. No. 449 of 2003. 10. The workmen are also aggrieved by the said award because, they were not given the other benefits such as continuity of service backwages etc. Therefore, the workmen have come up with W.P. No. 36529 of 2003, wherein, they have also prayed for a direction to the Management to reinstate them with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. That is how these two writ petitions are before this Court for disposal. 11. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and I have also perused the records carefully. 12. Admittedly, the workmen were all employed on daily wages basis as against the leave vacancies. Admittedly, they were retrenched from service without following Section 25F of the Act. Now, the question is whether such retrenchment is valid or not. 13. 11. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and I have also perused the records carefully. 12. Admittedly, the workmen were all employed on daily wages basis as against the leave vacancies. Admittedly, they were retrenched from service without following Section 25F of the Act. Now, the question is whether such retrenchment is valid or not. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the Management is that the workmen did not work for more than 240 days and therefore, they are not entitled for the benefits of Section 25F of the Act. 14. But, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Workmen that they have worked for more than 240 days and therefore, they are entitled for the benefits of Section 25F of the Act. The core question is whether the workmen had worked for more than 240 days or not. 15. The Tribunal has considered the oral as well as documentary evidence in detail. The Tribunal has held that no document prior to the year 1983 had been produced by the Management though the workmen have claimed that they had been working from the year 1979. But, the explanation offered by the Management is that for the said period, there was no attendance register maintained for. That is the reason why the workmen filed Miscellaneous Applications in M.A. Nos. 38 to 43 of 2001 seeking to produce the Attendance registers (original) instead of xerox copy of the Exhibit M.23 and the register of wages, debit cash voucher in respect of the workmen for the period from 1979 to 1985 and also the list of persons appointed in the post of peons, sub-staff, clerks from January 1986 to on that date. 16. Admittedly, the said documents have not been produced by the Management. It is on this basis, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the Management has failed to produce the necessary documents pertaining to the relevant period as claimed by the workmen and therefore, adverse inference was drawn against the Management. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal was right in doing so assuming that the stand of the Management that there was no attendance register maintained prior to the year 1983 and daily wages would have been paid to these daily wagers only by recording the same in the register of wages and the debit cash voucher. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal was right in doing so assuming that the stand of the Management that there was no attendance register maintained prior to the year 1983 and daily wages would have been paid to these daily wagers only by recording the same in the register of wages and the debit cash voucher. Despite the order passed by the Tribunal in the Miscellaneous Applications, the Management did not produce the said documents. Had these documents been produced certainly, it would have come to light as to whether the workmen were working prior to 1983 and the workmen had worked for more than 240 days or not. Suppression of these documents by the Management would give only raise to the adverse inference against the Management. It is on this adverse inference, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days. For the period subsequent to 1983, of course, the Management has produced the documents i.e., the attendance registers from July 1983 to December 1985 (Exhibit M.23). Since Exhibit M.23 happened to be the xerox copies of the attendance registers, the workmen wanted the originals of the same to be produced by the Management. In the Miscellaneous Applications, the Industrial Tribunal also directed the Management to produce the original documents. Accordingly, the same were produced. On going through the same, the Tribunal found that the workmen had not worked for more than 240 days subsequent to July 1983. It is based on this, the learned counsel for the Management would contend that there is no proof that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days. This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the attendance registers pertaining to the month of July 1983 to December 1985 alone were produced by the Management and as I have already pointed out, the wage register and vouchers prior to July 1983 were not produced. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the workmen have worked for more than 240 days. 17. Above all, the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited inasmuch as this Court cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal or Revision so as to re-appreciate the entire evidence and to substitute its views in the place of the findings of the Tribunal. 17. Above all, the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited inasmuch as this Court cannot convert itself into a Court of Appeal or Revision so as to re-appreciate the entire evidence and to substitute its views in the place of the findings of the Tribunal. Unless it is shown to the Court that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse in the legal sense, it is not possible for this Curt to interfere with the same. 18. The learned counsel for the Management is not in a position to demonstrate that the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. As I have already pointed out, the Tribunal had rightly drawn adverse inference against the Management and has also come to the conclusion that the workmen have worked for more than 240 days. In the above conclusions, I do not find any perversity and there-fore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the termination of the workmen is illegal. 19. The workmen have come up with W.P. No. 36529 of 2003 seeking to quash a part of the impugned common award of the Tribunal and also for a direction for reinstatement in service with continuity of service backwages and all the other attendant benefits. But, the learned counsel for the Management would submit that since they were working only against the leave vacancies, there is no question of giving them continuity of service, backwages, etc. The learned counsel would further submit that as and when there arose vacancy they could have been engaged. The learned counsel for the Management in this regard would rely on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Man Singh, (2012) 1 SCC 558 , wherein in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 it has been held as follows:- 5. In view of the aforementioned legal position and the fact that the respondent workmen were engaged as "daily wagers" and they had merely worked for more than 240 days, in our considered view, relief of reinstatement cannot be said to be justified and instead, monetary compensation would meet the ends of justice. 6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court as also the award dated 27.05.2005 passed by the Labour Court are set aside. We direct the appellant, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to pay Rs. 6. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court as also the award dated 27.05.2005 passed by the Labour Court are set aside. We direct the appellant, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to each of the respondents in full and final settlement of their claim, within six weeks from today. In case the payment is not made within the aforementioned stipulated time, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Relying on the same, the learned counsel would submit that since the workmen are all daily wagers there can be only an order for compensation and there is no question of reinstating them in service. 20. The learned counsel for the workmen would rely on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, (2010) 3 SCC 192 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed 50% of backwages to be paid to the workmen who were unlawfully terminated though they were daily wagers. 21. I have considered the above submissions. 22. Admittedly, the workmen herein are out of employment from 1985 onwards. They were in employment as daily wagers as against the leave vacancies only for a period of six years between 1979 and 1985. At that time, they were drawing a sum of Rs. 22/- per day as daily wages. At this length of time, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BSNL vs. Man Singh (cited supra), it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Management to pay compensation to the workmen instead of reinstating them in service. Going by the length of service put in, age and economic status of the workmen, escalation of the wages of employees during the interregnum period and all the other attending circumstances, I am of the view that directing the Management to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to each of the workmen would meet the ends of justice. In the result, both the writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The impugned award of the Tribunal setting aside the termination of the workmen is confirmed. 2 lakhs to each of the workmen would meet the ends of justice. In the result, both the writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- (i) The impugned award of the Tribunal setting aside the termination of the workmen is confirmed. (ii) The impugned award of the Tribunal for reinstating the respondents 2 to 7 in service is modified and instead, the Management is directed to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to each of the workmen as compensation in full quit of all their claims, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.