S. B. MHASE, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these Letter Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment and orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 19th April 2002 in Writ Petitions Nos. 4730 of 1994 and 4734 of 1994.

( 2 ) INITIALLY, 9 workmen who were employed with the appellant had filed ulp Complaint before the Member, Industrial Court at Kolhapur. However, all those complaints were dismissed by the Member, Industrial Court by a common judgment dated 22. 7. 1994. Out of these 9 workmen, 5 workmen have approached this Court by filing the above referred two writ petitions. The ULP Complaint No. 112 of 1988 was filed by the respondent in Letters patent Appeal 213 of 2002. After the dismissal of the said complaint, the respondent in Letters Patent Appeal 213 of 2002 filed Writ Petition No. 4730 of 1994. Since the said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 19th April 2002, the appellant has preferred Letters Patent appeal No. 213 of 2002. Thus, it will be clear that the respondent in Letters patent Appeal No. 213 of 2002 is the Complainant in ULP Complaint No. 112 of 1988, and the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4730 of 1994. ULP Complaint no. 123 of 1988 was filed by one Vijay Jagnnath Pawar. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the Letters Patent Appeal No. 212 of 2002 are the legal representatives of the said Vijay Jagannath Pawar. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are continuing the litigation of the said ULP Complaint as the legal heir of said Vijay pawar. ULP Complaint No. 132 of 1988 was filed by the respondent No. 1, in letters Patent Appeal No. 212 of 2002. ULP Complaint No. 185 of 1988 was filed by the respondent No. 2, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 212 of 2002. ULP complaint No. 189 of 1988 was filed by the respondent No. 3 in Letters Patent appeal No. 212 of 2002. After the dismissal of all these complaints, the respondent nos. 1 to 5, as stated above, have jointly preferred Writ Petition No. 4734 of 1994 against the common order passed by the Member, Industrial court, referred to above, from which the present Letter Patent Appeals arise. While disposing of the Writ Petition No. 4734 of 1994, the learned Single judge of this Court, after disposing of the Writ Petition No. 4730 of 1994, has observed that "for the reasons recorded in Writ Petition No. 4730 of 1994, writ Petition No. 4734 of 1994 may be disposed of in terms of the orders which are stated separately". Thus it will be evident that both these Letters patent Appeals arise from the common judgment, and therefore, we have decided to dispose of these Letters Patent Appeals by this common judgment.

( 3 ) AT the outset, we point out that the appellant- Cooper Kamgar Sangh is a recognised union under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the MRTU and pulp Act, 1971. The respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No. 213 of 2002, namely, Ibrahim Hanif Mulani was/is not a Member of the recognised union. However, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 212 of 2002 and the deceased Vijay were/are the Members of the recognised union in the said Industry being the Cooper Kamgar Sangh.

( 4 ) ULP complaints were filed by the respondent under Item-5 of Schedule-IV and Items-1 and 4 of Schedule-II of the MRTU and PULP Act, since the services of the respondents were terminated with effect from 5. 2. 1988 after the close of the working hours, in view of the settlement under Section 2 (p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 arrived at between the appellant-management and the recognised Union dated 2. 2. 1988. The said settlement was the subject-matter of challenge before this Court. As a result of the said settlement, out of total 810 employees services of 492 employees were brought to an end and services of the 318 employees were retained on certain conditions. Out of 492 employees, only 9 employees had challenged the said act of termination of the services by filing the ULP complaints, as stated above. Out of 9 employees four employees a