B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---These four Letters Patent Appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 24th December, 1999 delivered by the learned Single Judge (R.J. Kochar, J.) in Writ Petition No. 5536 of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 5550 of 1998. The issues of fact are common and the questions of law arise from the same judgment. It would, hence, be convenient to decide all the four Letters Patent Appeals by a common judgment.

2. The appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 118 of 2000 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 119 of 2000 is a Public Limited Company which manufactures three wheelers and two wheelers (hereinafter referred to as “the company”). The respondents in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals and the appellants in Letters Patent Appeal No. 19 of 2000 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 20 of 2000 are about 703 temporary workmen employed in the company (hereinafter referred to as “the workmen”). The 2nd respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No. 19 of 2000 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 20 of 2000 and the 3rd respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No. 118 of 2000 is the Industrial Court, Pune, constituted under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

FACTS

3. The company has a factory at Akurdi, Pune where it manufactures three wheelers and two wheelers. Prior to or about August 1984, the company did not have the practice of hiring temporary employees in its Akurdi Plant. Employees were hired as probationers, but were given breaks in service after successive periods of probation and after several such breaks they were ultimately confirmed as permanent employees. In or about the year 1981, there were about 8000 permanent workmen in the Akurdi Plant of the Company. From August 1984, the company discontinued the system of appointing workmen on probation. All employment thereafter was done on temporary basis for fixed periods of seven months followed by a break of varying period in each case. As a result of these breaks, no temporary employee would complete 240 day's service in any period of twelve months.

4. As a result of the introduction of this new pattern of work, not a single workman was made permanent from and after August 1984. The strength of permanent workmen which stood around 8000 in 1981, declined to about 6088 in 1990 as a result of natural separation caused by retirements, deaths, resignations and dismissals, but the ensuing permanent vacancies were not filled up, though the production continuously kept rising during the said period. More than about 700 temporary workmen were engaged on seven months contract at any given time of the year. The vacant permanent posts were neither abolished, nor were they filled up. It is the case of the workmen that the permanent and perennial work, which was formerly done by permanent workmen who had ceased to be in service, was got done by temporary workmen who were appointed on seven months contracts. These temporary workmen were hired by rotation as Assemblers, Machinists, Grinders, Press shop Operators, Welders and Carpenters. Though, according to the workmen, initially, a handful of temporary workmen were engaged as Helpers, subsequently, by the mid and late 1990, all temporary workmen were employed only on permanent and perennial work of Metal Pressing, Assembly, Welding, Machining, Grinding and Carpentry and not a single temporary workman was hired as a Helper. It is the case of the workmen that inspection of the musters and records of the company would reveal that while about 33 seven-months temporary workmen were employed on 1st January, 1986, this number progressively increased to about 983 seven-months temporary workmen as on 15th August, 1997. This system of appointment of temporary workmen for short spans of seven months and thereafter discontinuing their service led to disaffection and dissatisfaction amongst the workmen.

5. Sometime in May 1997, about 660 temporary workmen filed individual complaints of unfair labour p