(1.) In both these petitions the facts are more or less identical, as also the judgment and award and therefore, for convenience they are decided together.
(2.) The facts emerging in Special Civil Application No.16565 of 2015 are thus:
(3.) Both the cases were opposed by the petitioner by contending in the written statement that the workman was a daily wager/casual worker; his services being prone to termination at the end of the day and thus the question of terminating his services on 01.01.1996 did not arise. That it was for convenience that the salary was paid to him at the end of every month. It was also contended that having regard to the nature of employment of the workmen the maintenance of seniority list and the procedure contemplated under Section 25F was not necessitated and there was no unfair labour practice as pleaded by them and that their employment was seasonal and work which was being done by the respondentworkmen was being taken now from the regular employee.