JUDGMENT : W.P.(C) No.2163 of 2018 is filed challenging Ext.P4 common award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad, dated 06.11.2017 in Industrial Dispute No.2/2016. The 1 st and 2 nd petitioners are partnership firms engaged in stage carriage services. 2. Respondents 1 to 6 in the writ petition filed an application under Section 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking relief against the denial of employment by the management and also for reinstatement in service with back wages. Subsequently, the same subject matter was referred as per the Government Order dated 16.12.2015. The application filed under Section 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was taken on file as O.A.I.D. No.1/2015, and the reference was taken on file as I.D.No.2/2016, and as the issues and the parties were common, both the disputes were considered jointly leading to Ext.P4 common award. 3. The respondents 1 to 6 of this writ petition contended that they were working as Drivers, Conductors and Cleaners in the bus service owned by the 7 th respondent, Managing Partner, NTP Bus Services. Later on, based on the contention raised by the management, M/s Ram Reni Transport, M/s Nithya Transport, M/s Nallappa Transport and M/s Manikandan Bus Services were impleaded as supplementary parties. The Workmen contended that the management was running buses bearing Registration Numbers (1) KL-10-Q-8600, (2) KL-11 R 5851, (3) KL-13 P 8719, (4) KL 08 Z 9118, (5) KL 08 D 7135, (6) KL 08 AB 4007, (7) KL 09 B5670, (8) KL 13 H 7272 (9) KL 8 Y 1484 (10) KLQ 2005, (11) KL 9 AA 8060 and (12) KL 8 X 1683 and had many routes allotted by the Regional Transport Authority including inter-state permit on Pollachi-Thrissur route. Alleging that the workmen were not paid their statutory entitlements and that the management had asked them to work in all buses the management owned and that the workers had worked in all the buses of the management which were plying in the name of NTP bus service interchangeably, a complaint was raised that the management had denied employment to them which was illegal and therefore they claimed reinstatement with back wages. 4. The management contended that Sri. Ramaswamy Gounder had no relation to the NTP Bus Service, and he is the Managing Partner of Nithya Transport and Manikandan Bus Service, partnership firms constituted on 27.03.2013 and 1.06.2006, respectively. 4. The management contended that Sri. Ramaswamy Gounder had no relation to the NTP Bus Service, and he is the Managing Partner of Nithya Transport and Manikandan Bus Service, partnership firms constituted on 27.03.2013 and 1.06.2006, respectively. It was stated that Smt. Nandini is the Managing Partner of Ram Reni Transport, a firm constituted on 01.09.1990. It was stated that Nallappa Transport had no relationship whatsoever in the dispute. In short, they contended that there was no employer-employee relationship between the workers and the NTP Bus Service and Nallappa Transport and that all the five managements in the dispute were independent. 5. It was further alleged that Sri. Murukesan and Sri. Aravindan, respondents 1 and 6, were working in Ram Reni Transport and had resigned voluntarily and Sri. Aravindan settled his Employees Provident Fund on 12.10.2010 and received Rs.1,31,185/-, while Sri. Murukesan who was working from 01.08.2010 to 02/2011, had resigned from service. It was stated that Sri. Rathinakumar, Sri. M. Kandaswami and Sri. N. Chandran, respondents 2 to 4, had resigned from Manikandan Bus Service on 06.06.2005 and had also received a refund from the Motor Thozhilali Welfare Fund Board. It was stated that the Sri. Ravi, the fifth respondent, has not worked at all in the 2nd, 3rd and 5th management at any point in time and had no employer-employee relationship between them. Workers No.2 to 4 in the dispute had worked in Nithya Transport subsequently and had resigned from service on 05.08.2011, 11.06.2011 and 30.08.2011, respectively. They contend that there was no occasion for any denial of employment to workers 1 to 6 in the above dispute by management Nos.2, 3 and 5 and hence they are not entitled to any relief as claimed. 6. Through the award impugned, it was found that workmen Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 continued service in the management with effect from 15.06.1994 and Sri. Ravi, the 5th workman, had continued service in the management with effect from 2005 onwards and in the absence of the management producing the relevant documents like Attendance Register, Wages Register and Service Records, adverse inference had to be drawn against them and accordingly, the award was passed holding that management Nos.1 to 5 had denied employment to the workers. The operative portion of the award runs as follows: “27. The operative portion of the award runs as follows: “27. In the result an award is passed holding that the management Nos.1 to 5 in the above matter have denied employment to the workers herein and the Workers No.1, 2, 3 4 and 6 are entitled to receive Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Only) and the 5th workman Sri. Ravi is entitled to receive Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only) as compensation. If the management is opting not to pay the compensation amount the workers are entitled to the reinstatement with continuity of service. They will also be entitled to the back wages amounting to 35% of the total back wages due which is to be calculated on the basis of the last drawn salary shown in the schedule attached to the complaint. The management has to exercise their option to pay compensation within 60 days from the date of pronouncement of this award in the open court by paying the amount of compensation. If the option is not exercised by the management, the workers will be entitled to re-instatement with continuity of service and 35% of the total back wages as mentioned above. It is also made clear that the Management No.1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to comply this award.” 7. The writ petition is filed by Ram Reni Transport and Nallappa Transport alone, management Nos.2 and 4, respectively. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. P. Ramakrishnan argues that neither in the claim statement nor in the evidence adduced by the Tribunal did the workers claim employment under the petitioners, and therefore, there was no question of the petitioners being mulcted with any liability. It is also argued that the documents produced showed that the sixth respondent closed his PF account and left the services and Exts.P9 and P10 showed that applications were submitted under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which reveals that workers had left the service voluntarily and therefore the finding that the workers were denied employment is without any evidence. 9. 9. It is also pointed out that Ext.P3 statement shows that respondents 2 to 4 had left services on 06.06.2005 accepting their eligible dues from the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Board and the 8th respondent had admitted that respondents 2 to 4 had thereafter worked under the said respondents till 05.08.2011, 11.06.2011 and 30.08.2011 respectively and in the light of the said admission and the evidence of MW1, no liability could have been cast on the petitioners. It is argued that reliance was wrongly placed on the photographs produced while filing W.P.(C) No.31790/2014, filed on behalf of respondents 8 and 9 by Sri. Ramaswamy, the Managing Partner of those firms, seeking police protection. Though the Tribunal found that the date of entry in the service claimed by respondents 1 to 6 cannot be accepted, it found fault with the management for not producing the relevant documents. 10. The Tribunal relied on an identity card and receipts issued by a trade union to conclude that the 5th respondent was appointed in the year 2005. The evidence let in by the workers clearly showed that they were not even aware of any particulars relating to NTP bus services under which they claimed they were employed. In any view of the matter, in the absence of any evidence to suggest the wages allegedly received by the workmen, the length of service or as under whom they worked, the award fixing the compensation is liable to be interfered with. 11. Learned counsel for respondents Sri. Jacob Sebastian, based on the counter affidavit that has been filed on behalf of the workmen, argued that the admission of MW1 that Nallappa Gounder, the father-in-law of Sri. Ramaswamy Gounder had started the bus service in the name of the style of NTP, and that Sri. Senthil Kumar, the Managing Director of Nallappa Transport, is the grandson of Nallappa Gounder and Smt. Nandini, the Managing Director of Ram Reni Transport is the granddaughter of Sri. Nallappa Gounder and that Sri. Ramaswamy, the Managing Director of Nithya Transport and Manikandan Bus Service, is the son-in-law of Sri. Nallappa Gounder. 12. He further argued that It was relying on Ext.W1 series, W13, W15 and the evidence of MW1 that the award was passed. Nallappa Gounder and that Sri. Ramaswamy, the Managing Director of Nithya Transport and Manikandan Bus Service, is the son-in-law of Sri. Nallappa Gounder. 12. He further argued that It was relying on Ext.W1 series, W13, W15 and the evidence of MW1 that the award was passed. It is also contended that all the managements were owned by the same persons and since common bus services were being conducted and the workers were employed interchangeably, they could not give specific details about their employer. The action of the management in doing so was with ulterior motives and to deprive the workers of their legitimate entitlements. It is not a case that the award was passed without any evidence at all. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court in Rajagopal B v. Jomy Xavier and Another [ 2010 (2) KHC 196 ] to contend that only in cases of perversity and glaring illegality, is interference warranted. It is also pointed out that since the operation of the award was stayed by this Court, the workers were unable to execute the award. Even the applications filed under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act did not produce any result. It is, therefore contended that no interference is warranted with Ext.P4 order and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 13. Heard learned Counsel on either side and perused the records. 14. On the basis of the pleadings referred to above and appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, Ext.P4 award was passed accepting the contentions of the workmen for the following reasons: a) On the issue of whether there is any bus service in the name NTP, the Tribunal relied on the deposition of MW1, along with documentary evidence (Ext.W1 series), which established that the bus services under different names —Nithya Transport, Manikandan Bus Service, and Ram Reni Transport—were all part of a family-run enterprise originating from Nallappa Gounder. MW1 admitted that multiple buses from these companies operated under the common name "NTP," which indicated that they were not independent entities but rather interconnected businesses under the same family management and from Exts. W13 and W15, it was found that the name of the buses is NTP Bus Service. MW1 admitted that multiple buses from these companies operated under the common name "NTP," which indicated that they were not independent entities but rather interconnected businesses under the same family management and from Exts. W13 and W15, it was found that the name of the buses is NTP Bus Service. Also, Sri Ramaswamy Gounder filed a written statement on behalf of management Nos.2, 3 & 5 and approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing WP(C) No. 31790/2014 for Police protection to the buses covered under Ext. W1 series, which is named as NTP. This reinforced the workmen's contention that the bus services were a single establishment rather than distinct legal entities. b) Ext.W14, the letter dated 15.06.1994 issued from Manikandan Bus Service to Sri. Murukesan S/o Sri. P.K. Krishnan, the 1st workman in the dispute, shows that he is working as a driver in the management as on the date of Ext.W14. The Tribunal reasoned that, except for Sri. Ravi, the other workmen failed to provide documentary proof to establish their exact date of entry into service. However, the management admitted that Sri. Rathinakumar, Sri. M. Kandaswami, and Sri. Chandran worked in Manikandan Bus Service until 6.1.2005, and Sri. Aravindan worked in Ram Reni Transport until 12.10.2010. Additionally, Ext.W14, dated 15.6.1994, served as uncontroverted documentary evidence disproving the management’s claim regarding Sri. Murukesan’s service. Since the management did not specify the date of entry for workmen Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6 in the dispute, the court accepted 15.06.1994 as their date of continuous service. As for Sri. Ravi (workman No. 5), the Tribunal concluded that he had continuous service from 2005 onwards based on the available records. c) For the issue of whether there is any denial of employment to the workers by the management, the Tribunal inferred that the workmen had not voluntarily resigned, but were unjustifiably denied employment by the management. It reasoned that while the management claimed the workers had resigned, they failed to provide concrete evidence such as resignation letters, settlements, or termination records. Instead, they relied on refund applications for the Motor Transport Welfare Fund, EPF settlements, and gratuity applications. However, the Tribunal held that these documents alone could not prove termination. Since the workmen had established that they worked for more than 240 days, the burden of proof shifted to the management to show lawful termination. Instead, they relied on refund applications for the Motor Transport Welfare Fund, EPF settlements, and gratuity applications. However, the Tribunal held that these documents alone could not prove termination. Since the workmen had established that they worked for more than 240 days, the burden of proof shifted to the management to show lawful termination. The management failed to produce key documents like attendance registers, wage records, and service records. Citing Director, Fisheries Terminal Division v. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda [2010 AIR SC 1236], the Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the management for withholding evidence. Moreover, MW1’s cross-examination revealed that no show-cause notices or inquiries were conducted before termination. d) Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that workmen Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 had continuous service since 15.06.1994, and workman No. 5 (Sri. Ravi) since 2005. Their termination did not comply with the Industrial Disputes Act, rendering it unjustifiable. e) For the grant of reliefs, the Tribunal held that the workers were denied employment without any valid justification, making them ordinarily entitled to reinstatement with back wages. However, considering the current strained relationship between the management and workers and the fact that some buses had already been transferred to third parties, reinstatement was deemed impractical. To balance the interests of both sides, the Tribunal decided to grant monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. It determined Rs. 1,75,000/- each for workmen Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, and Rs. 75,000/- for workman No. 5 (Sri. Ravi) as fair compensation. However, to ensure fairness, the Tribunal provided an alternative, if the management refuses to pay the compensation, the workmen will be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 35% of back wages, calculated based on their last drawn salary. Additionally, the Tribunal held that all five management entities (Nos. 1 to 5) are jointly and severally liable to comply with the award, ensuring the workers' rights are effectively upheld. 15. In Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors. [1963 SCC Online SC 24], it was noted that a finding of fact based on no evidence constitutes an error of law correctable by a writ of certiorari. However, the adequacy of evidence and inference drawn from it falls within the tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction and cannot be challenged in writ courts. In Ajay Singh v. Khacheru and Ors. [1963 SCC Online SC 24], it was noted that a finding of fact based on no evidence constitutes an error of law correctable by a writ of certiorari. However, the adequacy of evidence and inference drawn from it falls within the tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction and cannot be challenged in writ courts. In Ajay Singh v. Khacheru and Ors. (MANU/SC/0008/2025), it was held that findings can be set aside if unsupported by evidence or legally perverse. Mukand Ltd. v. Mukand Staff and Officers’ Association [(2004) 10 SCC 460] reinforced that findings through evidence appreciation by inferior tribunals cannot be questioned in writ proceedings. Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra [ AIR 1957 SC 264 = MANU/SC/0071/1956] clarified that a tribunal's factual decisions are challengeable under Article 226 only if completely unsupported by evidence. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao [ AIR 1963 SC 1723 ] it is stated that if some evidence supports a conclusion, the High Court should not second-guess that evidence in a writ petition. Rattan Enterprises and Ors. v. State of Odisha and Ors. (MANU/OR/0625/2023) case emphasized that "no evidence" includes scenarios where the evidence as a whole fails to support the tribunal's finding. Management of Madurantakam Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. S. Viswanathan [ (2005) 3 SCC 193 ] reinforced that writ courts should not delve into factual disputes unless findings are deemed perverse or lacking legal evidentiary support. The High Court cannot act as an appellate authority over the decisions of the Tribunal unless the findings are patently perverse. Absent such conditions, judicial restraint remains the appropriate course. 16. In the instant case, the management failed to produce essential documents such as resignation letters or termination records, relying instead on insufficient refund applications. Cross-examination of the management witness revealed a lack of due process in the termination. It is to be noted that the Tribunal had, after an overall appreciation of the evidence in the case, found that the persons manning the management were all common and were close relatives. It was also found, based on the photographs produced in a case filed by the Sri. P. Ramaswamy that all the bus services were running in the name of NTP which further strengthened the case of the workers that all the buses were being run by the same management though under different persons. 17. It was also found, based on the photographs produced in a case filed by the Sri. P. Ramaswamy that all the bus services were running in the name of NTP which further strengthened the case of the workers that all the buses were being run by the same management though under different persons. 17. The Industrial Disputes Tribunal based its decision on evidence, both oral and documentary proof, including the admissions made by the management witnesses. Under such circumstances, this cannot be treated as a case of total lack of evidence or "no evidence." as contended by the petitioners. Given the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the common award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.2163 of 2018 fails, and the same is dismissed. 18. W.P.(C) No.1125 of 2020 is filed by the Managing Partner of Ram Reni Transport contending that the joint application form for transfer of the permit was sanctioned by Ext.P2 decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, dated 13.07.2016, based on the application of the petitioners and therefore the second petitioner is entitled to get the transfer of permit endorsed in his name. The prayer in the writ petition is to direct the second respondent to endorse the transfer as aforesaid subject to the outcome of W.P. (C) No.2163/2018, which stands dismissed by this judgment. No interim order has been passed in this writ petition. 19. This Court as per Ext.P3 judgment disposed of W.P.(C) No.39615 of 2015 through its judgment dated 16.11.2016 held as follows: “The Industrial Tribual shall dispose O.A.1 of 2025 on or before 31.1.2017. In the meanwhile, the respondents 5 to 9 shall not transfer vehicles bearing Nos.KL-8 1484, KL 8 X1683, KL 10 Q 2005 and KL 13 H 7272. It is made clear that direction as above will not have an impact on buses already transferred by changing ownerships particulars in R.C.book and it would continue to operate only against such non-transfered vehicle which stands in the name of the respondents 5 to 9 as on today. The transfer already effected would be subject to the outcome of OA as already observed by this court in Ext.P4 judgment. The first and second respondent shall ensure that this order is complied. The transfer already effected would be subject to the outcome of OA as already observed by this court in Ext.P4 judgment. The first and second respondent shall ensure that this order is complied. It is made clear that if the vehicles have been already transferred prior to this judgment, the transferee is permitted to use the vehicles subject to the right any available to proceed against the vehicle based on the outcome of the award in O.A 1 of 2015 as ordered by this court in Ext.P4 judgment.” 20. Since I have already upheld the award of the Industrial Tribunal and since Ext.P4 judgment in W.P.(C) No.1125 of 2020 made it clear that the transfer will be subject to the outcome of the award, it will be open to the petitioners to work out their remedies accordingly. Nothing remains to be considered in this writ petition as the prayer is to endorse the transfer subject to the orders in W.P.(C) No.2163/2018. W.P.(C) No.1125 of 2020 is closed as above.