JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-The first respondent, which is a Union of the workmen, filed a complaint against the appellant for unfair labour practices under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the Act ) under Item 1(a) by way of victimisation; (b) not in good faith, but in the colourable exercise of the employer s right; (d) for patently false reasons; and (f) in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic enquiry or with undue haste of Scheduled IV of the Act. Before the Seventh Labour Court at Bombay it was claimed by the respondent herein that the statutory duty of the appellant is not only to keep the factory premises clean, hygienic and dust free but also the surroundings thereof in terms of Schedule "M" of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the employees engaged for such process are, therefore, employees of the company itself; that, in fact, the appellant had been directly employ ing the workmen to attend such work and the appellant used to appoint such persons on casual or temporary basis and terminate their services from time to time with a view to depriving th