JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.2014 passed in Writ Petition Nos.36243654 of 2012 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions directing reinstatement of the petitioners with full backwages from the date of their removal till the date of their reinstatement, the 1st respondent Milk Union has preferred the instant writ appeal. 2. The parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The 1st respondent-Shivamogga Co-Operative Milk Union Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Milk Union’), which is a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, started its operation on 15.3.1988, of giving technical assistance to the farmers with regard to animal husbandry and dairying in order to develop dairying as a subsidiary occupation. In this regard, several chilling centres for milk in the places coming under its jurisdiction were established. The Government passed an order bringing the respondent-Milk Union and others under its administrative control w.e.f. 1.8.1991. 4. The writ petitioners were appointed as contract labourers to work in the dairy farms and chilling centers of the 1st respondent-Milk Union. The appointment of the petitioners vary from 1986 to 1991. They were initially paid Rs.270/p.m. in the year 198687 and at the relevant point of time they were drawing Rs.900/- p.m. On 5.4.1995, the writ petitioners were removed from their duties on the ground that their services were not necessary. It is the claim of the writ petitioners that their removal was in violation of the principles of natural justice and without indicating any reason as to why their services were not required. The petitioners appeared to have submitted representations to the concerned authorities to take them back to duty and also to regularise their services. Since no action was taken, they approached the Labour Court at Bengaluru, seeking a relief of reinstatement. The Labour Court rejected the dispute on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as the petitioners were the employees of the a Cooperative Society. It is, thereafter, the petitioners approached the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. The Labour Court rejected the dispute on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as the petitioners were the employees of the a Cooperative Society. It is, thereafter, the petitioners approached the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 70 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies allowed the dispute on 9.3.2007 directing reinstatement of the writ petitioners along with 50% backwages, on the ground that there was no evidence produced by the Milk Union that they were employed through the contractors, as was contended by the Milk Union. It was also held that the petitioners had worked for 240 days without any break in a given year and they could not have been removed from service without due process of law. 5. The 1st respondent-Milk Union challenged the said order of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru in appeal No.354 of 2007. On hearing the parties, and on analysis of the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the Appellate Tribunal reversed the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies and dismissed the dispute raised by the writ petitioners on the ground that, there was no basis to allow the dispute by overlooking the judgments relied on by the 1st respondent-Milk Union and also on the ground that there was no sufficient material to say that salary to the petitioners was being paid by the 1st respondent-Milk Union directly. 6. This order of the appellate Tribunal was challenged before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.3624-3654 of 2012. The learned Single Judge, based on the contentions advanced, formulated the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal setting aside the order of reinstatement of the petitioners with 50% back wages is sustainable in the eye of law? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for full back wages? 7. In answering the points formulated, the learned Single Judge relied on the evidence that was let in before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies and considered the fact that the petitioners were paid by the 1st respondent Milk Union directly after obtaining the signatures on the vouchers and making compulsory deductions out of their salary and the Union also paid bonus to the petitioners. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the evidence observed to the version of the 1st respondent-Milk Union that the petitioners were employed through the contractors were never proved before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies and held that the order of the Tribunal was bad in law. 8. The learned Single Judge on the point whether the petitioners were entitled to full backwages, following the judgment of the Apex Court Apex Court in DEEPALI GUNDU SURWASE VS. KRANTI JUNIOR ADHYAPAK MAHAVIDYALA (D.ED.) AND OTHERS reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 held that as a general rule, once a removal is held to be bad, the grant of backwages is unmistakable. On that ground, granted full backwages modifying the order of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who had granted 50% backwages along with reappointment. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the 1st respondent-Milk Union has preferred the instant writ appeal. 9. We have heard Sri K. Ramachandran, learned Counsel appearing for Sri M.R.C. Ravi, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Kiran Kumar T.L., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.32. Sri H. Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 31 remained absent. 10. The writ petitioners were all appointed on daily wage basis in the 1st respondent-Milk Union on different dates between the years 1986 and 1991. They were employed in the chilling centres of the Milk Union and other allied dairying activities. They were also paid monthly consolidated wages at Rs.200/at the time of their employment and Rs.900/per month at the relevant point of time. Statutory deductions were also made from their salaries during their employment in the Union. 11. On 5.4.1995, the petitioners were removed from service on the ground that their work was seasonal and the dairy activities had declined. The petitioners claimed to have submitted representations to the concerned authorities to reinstate them into service by taking them back to duties and regularise their services. Since, no action was taken by the authorities, the petitioners approached the Labour Court challenging the action of their removal from service. The Labour Court by its order dated 3.8.2000 dismissed the application filed before it on the ground of want of jurisdiction as the petitioners were the employees of a Cooperative Society. This led the petitioners to approach the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bengaluru Region, Bengaluru. The Labour Court by its order dated 3.8.2000 dismissed the application filed before it on the ground of want of jurisdiction as the petitioners were the employees of a Cooperative Society. This led the petitioners to approach the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bengaluru Region, Bengaluru. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, on hearing the parties, allowed the dispute filed before him by the following order: “ORDER For the reasons explained above the suit of the applicants are allowed. It is ordered to the Respondent Milk Federation by reappointing the applicants – daily wage workers worked earlier and to pay 50 percent of the back wages from 5.4.1995 to till they were appointed. It is directed to the Respondent Milk Federation to implement this order within two months”. 12. The 1st respondent-Milk Union challenged the same before the Appellate Tribunal. It is seen that the Appellate Tribunal, without assigning any reason, held that there was no evidence to conclude that the petitioners had worked for more than 240 days in a given year and the salary was being paid to them by the 1st respondent Milk Union. This finding of the Tribunal is completely contrary to the evidence on record. 13. Before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the petitioners examined one Renukappa, an employee of the Union, who deposed before the authorities that the petitioners were engaged by the 1st respondent-Milk Union and they were working in different posts, they were being paid by the Milk Union after obtaining signatures on the vouchers, compulsory deductions were made from out of their salary, they were being given one kg. ghee and also Rs.200/as bonus on the occasion of Ugadi festival. Ex.P1 to Ex.P36 were marked which were the attendance extracts. He has deposed that the petitioners have worked in their respective posts in respondent society for more than 240 days in a given year. The said witness has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent Milk Union. He has denied the suggestion that the petitioners were engaged through contractors. He has also denied the suggestion that no notice is required to be issued to them as they were engaged through contractors. Therefore, it is clear that nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of this witness who is examined on behalf of the petitioners. 14. He has denied the suggestion that the petitioners were engaged through contractors. He has also denied the suggestion that no notice is required to be issued to them as they were engaged through contractors. Therefore, it is clear that nothing worth is elicited from the mouth of this witness who is examined on behalf of the petitioners. 14. Therefore, it becomes clear that the petitioners were engaged by the 1st respondent-Milk Union directly and salary was being paid to the petitioners by the 1st respondent-Milk Union and not through the contractors. It is also the fact that the petitioners had worked for 240 days in a year. 15. The 1st respondent-Milk Union had examined one Nimbegowda, who was the manager of Establishment Branch, as M.W.1. In the cross-examination, M.W.1 has stated that he has to see the records to say as to what was the amount paid to the contractor. He has admitted that the attendance extracts Exs.P1 to P36 were issued by the Security Department. He has further stated in the cross-examination that he does not know that the petitioners were working in the 1st respondent-Milk Union between 198586 to 199095 on daily wages. This further establishes that the witness of the Management itself is not sure of the fact as to whether the petitioners were employed directly or through the contractors. Being the Manager of the Establishment Branch, nobody else except him can say that whether the petitioners were directly employed by the 1st respondent-Milk Union or contractors. Thus, the evidence of the witness of the Management itself supports the case of the petitioners. 16. One more witness, namely, Sri H H Paramesh, who was working in the Establishment Branch as an Assistant, was examined as MW2. He has also deposed on the lines of MW1 in his chief examination. In his cross-examination, MW2 has stated that the petitioners were working on daily wages in the 1st respondent-Milk Union from 1986 in different posts. They were being paid salary up to the date of termination. He has also admitted that the petitioners were discharging the duty for a minimum period of 8 hours. He has also admitted about the payment of bonus of Rs.200/and one kg. ghee. He has deposed that the petitioners were discharging their duties except on holidays. They were being paid salary up to the date of termination. He has also admitted that the petitioners were discharging the duty for a minimum period of 8 hours. He has also admitted about the payment of bonus of Rs.200/and one kg. ghee. He has deposed that the petitioners were discharging their duties except on holidays. MW2 has also admitted that Ex.P1 to P36 are issued by the respective heads of different branches where the petitioners were working. This witness has further stated that services of the petitioners in their respective posts, is still required by the 1st respondent-Milk Union. Thus, M.W.2, the Management witness has also clearly stated that the petitioners were discharging their duties and Exs.P.1 to 36 were issued by the respective heads of different branches where the petitioners were working. It is also his say that the petitioners are still required by the 1st respondent-Milk Union. 17. Thus, the evidence before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies was completely in favour of the petitioners. Both, the witnesses of the Management and petitioners have stated that the petitioners were appointed directly by the 1st respondent-Milk Union, salary was paid to them by the 1st respondent-Milk Union and they worked for 240 days in a given year. 18. The order of the Tribunal runs completely contrary to the evidence on record only on the ground, 1st interalia, that the judgments relied on by the respondent-Milk Union were not considered. 19. The 1st respondent-Milk Union has failed to produce any documents in support of their case relating to payment of money to contractors and as to whether the petitioners have worked for 240 days in a year or not. Considering the claim of the petitioners, oral evidence led in by them and the documentary evidence made available on record, which are mentioned above, it is clear that the services of the petitioners were engaged by the 1st respondent-Milk Union and they have discharged their duties for more than 240 days in a year. The fact that they were discharging their duties except on holidays would prove the said aspect of the matter. 20. Nothing prevented the 1st respondent-Milk Union to place on record the documents to prove the nature of appointment of the petitioners, amount paid to the contractors, if really the petitioners were engaged through the contractors and the amounts were being paid to them through the contractors. 20. Nothing prevented the 1st respondent-Milk Union to place on record the documents to prove the nature of appointment of the petitioners, amount paid to the contractors, if really the petitioners were engaged through the contractors and the amounts were being paid to them through the contractors. Though the burden of proof is primarily on the petitioners who have approached for the relief, in a case of this nature, when certain materials are made available by the petitioners, the burden shifts on the 1st respondent-Milk Union to rebut the materials placed on record. With the available materials, the only inference that can be drawn is that the petitioners were engaged by the 1st is respondent-Milk Union, they have put in 240 days or more in a year and without issuing any notice to them, their services were terminated, which amounts to retrenchment. In the circumstances, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies has assigned valid reasons and is justified in allowing the dispute and directing reappointment of the petitioners. 21. The learned Single Judge considering the fact that the 1st respondent-Milk Union has failed to produce any document in support of their case relating to the payment of money to the contractors and that the petitioners had worked 240 days in a given year, and also considering the evidence that was let in before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, allowed the writ petitions by the following order: “30. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is hereby quashed. The respondent society is directed to reinstate the petitioners with full back wages from the date of removal till their reinstatement within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to state that calculation of back wages shall be as per the provisions of pay scales revised to the employees from time to time. The order passed by the J R C S shall stand modified to that extent. Rule issued and made absolute accordingly.” 22. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-Milk Union contends that the order of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies was contrary to law and that the Tribunal had correctly reversed the order of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The order passed by the J R C S shall stand modified to that extent. Rule issued and made absolute accordingly.” 22. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-Milk Union contends that the order of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies was contrary to law and that the Tribunal had correctly reversed the order of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The learned Single Judge could not have reversed the finding of the Tribunal and allowed the writ petitions granting more than what the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies had granted. The learned Counsel would submit that the petitioners were appointed as contract labourers by the contractors and the contractors had not registered their Firm as required under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulations And Abolition) Act. The learned Counsel would further submit that the dispute before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies was not maintainable or even before this Court and the law, in this regard, is absolutely clear. The services of the petitioners will not create an employer and employee relationship between the petitioners and the 1st respondent-Milk Union. To buttress his submissions, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent Union has relied on the following judgments: (i) KRISHNA BHAGYA JAL NIGAM LTD. Vs. MOHD. RAFI reported in (2007)1 SCC (L&S) 679; (ii) DENA NATH AND OTHERS Vs. NATIONAL FERTILISERS LTD. AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1992 SC 457 . 23. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. (Supra) is relied upon by learned Counsel for the 1st respondent to contend that the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. It is in terms of the law declared by the Apex Court. Even earlier to the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-Milk Union, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies has clearly recorded that the petitioners have discharged their burden of proving on oral and documentary evidence that they had worked for 240 days in a given year. It is the 1st respondent-Milk Union which has failed to prove that the petitioners were employed through the contractors and the contractors were paying salary to the writ petitioners. The burden casted upon the writ petitioners is successfully discharged by them and 1st respondent Milk Union has failed to prove the contrary. It is the 1st respondent-Milk Union which has failed to prove that the petitioners were employed through the contractors and the contractors were paying salary to the writ petitioners. The burden casted upon the writ petitioners is successfully discharged by them and 1st respondent Milk Union has failed to prove the contrary. Thus, the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-Milk Union does not aid his submissions. The other judgment i.e., relied on by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-Milk Union is in the case of Dena Nath (Supra) to contend that noncompliance of provisions of registration or licence of principal employer or contractors under the Contract Labour (Regulations And Abolition) Act, the labourers do not become direct labourers under the principal employer. This judgment also is of no avail to the 1st respondent-Milk Union as it is on evidence, that the Milk Union has failed to prove that the petitioners were employed through contractors or the contractors paying salary. That fact having been not proved, the question of relying on aforesaid judgments would not arise at all. 24. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-Milk Union is unacceptable to us as the evidence that we have narrated hereinabove would clearly indicate that there existed employer–employee relationship between the Milk Union and Petitioners. In so far as the judgments in case of Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. (Supra) and Dena Nath (Supra), relied on by the 1st respondent-Milk Union, both on law and facts, are inapplicable. 25. Insofar as the contentions pertaining to the grant of full backwages by the learned Single Judge over and above what was granted by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies requires consideration. 26. The petitioners were removed from service on 4.9.1995. The order of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies is on 9.3.2007 which had granted reinstatement with 50% backwages. The order reversing the order of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies by the Appellate Tribunal is on 28.2.2011 and the order of the learned Single Judge is 10.12.2014. The writ appeal is filed on 13.1.2015. An interim order of stay of the order in writ petitions was passed by the learned Division Bench on 22.1.2016 and which is in operation even as on date. Thus, the grant of full backwages will be for 24 years i.e., from the date of removal till this day. The writ appeal is filed on 13.1.2015. An interim order of stay of the order in writ petitions was passed by the learned Division Bench on 22.1.2016 and which is in operation even as on date. Thus, the grant of full backwages will be for 24 years i.e., from the date of removal till this day. It is to be noticed that for the period of 24 years, the petitioners had not worked with the 1st respondent-Milk Union nor there is any evidence let in before the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies that they were not gainfully employed. In the circumstances, the order of the learned Single Judge granting full backwages which would be for 24 years would mulkt the 1st respondent-Milk Union with huge sums of money. 27. For the aforesaid reasons, we are inclined to modify that portion of the order of the learned Single Judge granting full backwages from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement to that of 25% backwages. Except the above stated modification, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. 28. Hence, we pass the following order: (i) The writ appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.12.2014 passed in Writ Petition Nos.36243654 of 2012 directing full backwages from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement is modified to that of 25% of the backwages. (iii) The rest of the order of the learned Single Judge is sustained. (iv) The time limit for compliance granted by the learned Single Judge is extended by two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.