A. P. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) THE facts of these cases are briefly as follows. The petitioners filed complaints under section 28 read with Items l (a), (b), (d) and (f) of schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as the MRTU and pulp Act, before the Industrial Court/labour Court for certain reliefs claiming that they are employees of the respondent company. The respondent company in all these writ petitions has disputed the status of the employees and has contended in its written statement that there is no relationship of employer employee with any of the petitioners. The company has contended that the complainants were employed through the contractors and that the issue regarding maintainability of the complaints would have to be decided by the court. During the pendency of these complaints, the judgments in the case of (Viuidh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steel Ltd.), 2001 (2) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)324 : 2001 (2) S. C. C. 381 and in the case of (Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General kamgar Union), 2001 (2) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)822 : 2001 (3) S. C. C. 101 were pronounced by the Supreme Court and relying