Judgment :- The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.5744 of 2012 is filed by the petitioner Corporation to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ of order or direction calling for the records of the order of Labour Court, Thirunelveli in I.D.No.11 of 2001, dated 24.01.2008 and quash the same. 2. The brief facts of the petitioner Corporation are as follows:- (a) The first respondent was engaged as casual labourer in the temporary vacancies that exists due to the absence of permanent employees due to unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances. (b) The first respondent was not in continuous duty for 240 days in a period of 12 months as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act. (c) The engagement of first respondent squarely governed by Section 2(oo)(b) and 2(00)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The first respondent is not entitled to any benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act as he was not engaged on the job against any sanctioned post or entitled to appointment in any future vacancies. (d) Any recruitment in petitioner Corporation must be in compliance with the legal requirements. The minimum requirement of any appointment of Corporation must be notified through Employment Exchange. 3. The impugned award of the Labour Court is erroneous and therefore, petitioner has filed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.5744 of 2012, challenging the Award of the Labour Court, Thirunelveli made in I.D.No.11 of 2001, dated 24.01.2008 and quash the same. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation has contended that the second respondent has wrongly taken into consideration, Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act in Labour Court Cases. The second respondent ought to have seen that it is for the first respondent to produce documents to prove his claim. The second respondent has wrongly inferred that the non production of the documents by the petitioner, proved the case of the first respondent. The second respondent has wrongly took into consideration the failure report in Conciliation proceedings for passing award in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent was engaged only on casual basis for an emergent purpose and the petitioner Corporation did not give any appointment order to the first respondent. The first respondent failed to prove that he worked for 240 days in a year in the petitioner's Corporation. 5. The first respondent was engaged only on casual basis for an emergent purpose and the petitioner Corporation did not give any appointment order to the first respondent. The first respondent failed to prove that he worked for 240 days in a year in the petitioner's Corporation. 5. The petitioner Corporation has filed the present Writ Petition in the year 2012, challenging the award of the labour Court in I.D.No.11 of 2001 dated 24.01.2008. According to the petitioner Corporation, the delay in filing the petition is procedure in nature and the delay is neither deliberate nor wanton. 6. The learned counsel for the first respondent has contended that the first respondent was employed as Driver Cum Conductor during the year 1994. While he was working continuously, he and similarly placed persons were issued memo dated 14.11.1997, by the petitioner to appear before the interview committee on 25.01.1998 and 26.01.1998, along with 15 similarly placed persons. After interview, the petitioner Corporation terminated the service of 16 employees. All the employees, including the first respondent made a representation to the petitioner Corporation. Considering the representations, 15 employees were reinstated in service, except the petitioner. 7. Therefore, the first respondent made representations to the petitioner Corporation to reinstate him in service. The petitioner Corporation assured him that necessary action will be taken to reinstate the first respondent. But, so far they have not reinstated the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent filed petition before the Conciliation Officer. Before the Conciliation Officer, the petitioner Corporation agreed to reinstate the first respondent. In pursuant to that, the petitioner Corporation directed the first respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.2,790/- and as per the directions the first respondent has also paid the said sum of Rs.2,790/-. 8. By virtue of letter dated 01.04.1999 by the office of the Managing Director, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagercoil, who is the Conciliation Officer informed that dispute was closed as settled. Even though the petitioner Corporation agreed before the Conciliation Officer they did not reinstate the first respondent in service. Therefore, he again gave a petition to Conciliation Officer on 09.05.2000 claiming the relief of employment and regularization of service. The second conciliation ended in failure. Therefore, the first respondent raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.11 of 2001 before the second respondent / Labour court. Therefore, he again gave a petition to Conciliation Officer on 09.05.2000 claiming the relief of employment and regularization of service. The second conciliation ended in failure. Therefore, the first respondent raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.11 of 2001 before the second respondent / Labour court. The second respondent, Labour Court passed an Award on 24.01.2008 directing the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the first respondent with continuity of service with full back wages. 9. The learned counsel for the first respondent further contended that even after the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner Corporation did not reinstate the petitioner. The first respondent gave various representations to the petitioner Corporation requesting for reinstatement and for back wages. The petitioner Corporation did not accede to the request of the first respondent and therefore, the first respondent has filed W.P.(MD).NO. 8127 of 2012 for a direction to the second and third respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.12.2011 and consequently to reinstate the petitioner in to service with back wages and make him a permanent employee in the third respondent Corporation with retrospective effect in the petitioner Corporation. The learned counsel for the first respondent has relied on the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD).NO.12352 of 2014 dated 02.09.2014. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Transport Corporation and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P(MD).NO.8127 of 2012 and first respondent in W.P.(MD).No.5744 of 2012. 11. I have carefully perused the materials on record and considered the arguments of counsel for the parties. 12. The petitioner Corporation has filed the W.P.(MD).No.5744 of 2012 only after receiving the representation of the first respondent dated 19.12.2011 for reinstatement of service with back wages. The reason given by the petitioner for delay in filing the Writ Petition is untenable and unsustainable. 13. The second respondent Labour Court has considered all the documents filed by the first respondent. From Exs.1 to 6 the second respondent came to the conclusion that the first respondent has worked for more than 240 days in a year. All these documents are letters written by the petitioner Corporation. The petitioner Corporation did not let in any oral or documentary evidence. From Exs.1 to 6 the second respondent came to the conclusion that the first respondent has worked for more than 240 days in a year. All these documents are letters written by the petitioner Corporation. The petitioner Corporation did not let in any oral or documentary evidence. The second respondent also took into consideration that the first respondent has filed I.A.NO.281 of 2003 for a direction to the petitioner Corporation to produce several documents relating to attendance register and acquittance register relating to first respondent, so as to establish that he had worked continuously for 240 days in 12 months. The said Interlocutory Application was ordered on 26.06.2007. Even after the order in Interlocutory Application, the petitioner Corporation has not produced any documents and he has not let in oral or documentary evidence. 14. The second respondent rightly took adverse inference and concluded that production of those documents would prove that the first respondent had worked for 240 days in 12 months and that is the reason why the petitioner has not produced those documents. The second respondent by the impugned award, directed the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and full back wages for the period during which the first respondent was not given employment. There is no error in the award of the second respondent. The first respondent in the claim statement has stated that similarly placed employees who were called for interview along with the first respondent were given employment, he alone was discriminated. The petitioner Corporation has not disputed this fact. 15. The learned counsel for the first respondent has relied on the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD).NO.12352 of 2014 dated 02.09.2014. In the said order, this Court directed the General Manager, Tamil Nadu State State Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Dindugal Division, Dindugal to implement the award of the Labour Court dated 05.10.2012 made in I.D.NO.13 of 2005, which reads as follows:- " 2. While the petitioner was working as conductor, the second respondent issued a charge memorandum on 31.03.1997, containing as many as 8 charges. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the second respondent initiated further proceedings. The second respondent conducted an enquiry and thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Thiruchirappalli in I.D.No.13 of 2005. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the second respondent initiated further proceedings. The second respondent conducted an enquiry and thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Thiruchirappalli in I.D.No.13 of 2005. The Labour Court was pleased to pass an order on 5 October 2012, whereby and where under a direction was issued to the respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without back wages. The award was not implemented by respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner is therefore before this Court. 3. There is no dispute that the award dated 5 October 2102 has become final. The second respondent having received the award ought to have taken up follow up action to implement the direction given by the Labour Court. 4. The second respondent is directed to implement the award passed by the Labour Court dated 5 October, 2012 in I.D.No.13 of 2005 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 16. As already stated earlier the reason given by the petitioner for the delay is untenable and unsustainable. Further on merits also there is no error in the impugned Award of second respondent. For these reasons the W.P.No.5477 of 2012 is dismissed as devoid of merits. 17. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition filed by the Transport Corporation in W.P.No.5477 of 2012, the Writ petition filed by the second respondent in W.P.(MD).NO.8127 of 2012 is allowed, following the order of this Court, dated 02.09.2014 made in W.P.(MD).No.12352 of 2014. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.