JUDGMENT

DUTT, J.:— Special leave is granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. These appeals preferred by the appellant, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd, are directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court whereby the High Court allowed the writ petitions of the respondents and quashed the order of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Kolhapur Bench), Kolhapur, dismissing the complaints filed by the respondents.

3. The Government of Maharashtra appointed the Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation, hereinafter referred to as "the Marketing Federation", the Chief Agent in the Cotton Monopoly Scheme under the provision of Section 42 of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Procurement Process of Marketing) Act, 1971. The activities of the Marketing Federation extended to various agricultural produce including foodgrains. In February, 1984, the Government carved out the operation of the levy of cotton from the other activities of the Marketing Federation and assigned them to another Society, namely, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd., the appellant in all these appeals. By its order dated August 10, 1984, the Government directed the Marketing Federation to take the following actions :-

"(i) In respect of the staff working under the Cotton Monopoly Scheme at present, the services of the seasonal staff working, if any, should be terminated with immediate effect and in any case not later than 15th August, 1984.

(ii) So far as the regular staff is concerned it is proposed that the services of the staff working in the Cotton Department of the Federation at Bombay and in the Mofussil areas would be placed at the disposal of the new Organisation on "as is where is basis" as on 1st July, 1984.

4. In a subsequent letter dated September 8, 1984 the Marketing Federation was directed to effect the transfer of the chief agency from the Marketing Federation to the appellant, inter alia. by transferring all the assets and liabilities under the scheme account and the cash and Bank balance at Bombay and Mofussil under the scheme account as well as under the non-scheme account to the appellant etc.

5. The respondents claimed that they were permanent employees of the Marketing Federation and in view of the directions contained in the said letter dated August 10, 1984 of the Government, the appellant should have appointed them on a permanent basis and not as seasonal employees. The case of the respondents was that they had been in the employment of the Marketing Federation since 1972 on monthly salaries with annual increments. Even though there was an Award in their favour by the Industrial Tribunal declaring them as permanent employees, yet the Marketing Federation and the appellant failed and neglected to give them the permanent status. Accordingly, they made complaints before the Industrial Court complaining of unfair labour practices on the part of the Marketing Federation as also on the part of the appellant as contained in Items Nos. 6 and 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Items 6 and 9 are as follows :-

"Item 6. To employ employees as "badlis", casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees.

Item 9. Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement."

6. In this connection, we may refer to section 5(d) of the said Act which provides that it shall be the duty of the Industrial Court to decide complaints relating to unfair labour practices except unfair labour practices falling in Item 1 of Schedule IV.

7. The Industrial Court took the view that the complaints made by the respondents did not come under items Nos. 6 and 9, but they came under item No.1 and, as such, it could not decide the complaints in view of section 5(d). Further, it was held by the Industrial Court that