R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.

( 1 ) HEARD. The appellants challenge the order dated 29-11-2001 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ petition No. 3429 of 1995. By the impugned order the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 28-9-1994 of the Industrial Court, Pune. By the said order, the industrial Court had allowed the complaint filed by the respondent under Item No. 6 of Schedule-IV of the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as "the said Act" and had directed the appellants to provide the benefits of permanency to the respondent with effect from 28-9-1987.

( 2 ) IT was the grievance of the respondent, along with other employees of the appellants, that he was appointed as daily wage workman during the period from 1983 to 1986 as a Baller in the printing press of the appellant and that inspite of he having completed the period of continuous 240 days in service in the post, which was vacant and permanent post, he was continued as a temporary employee without granting the benefits of permanency and therefore the appellants were indulging in unfair labour practice in terms of Item No. 6 of schedule-IV of the said Act. In the course of the pendency of the proceedings, it appears that similar type of dispute with the other employees was settled and even in the case of the respondent, he has been granted permanency with effect from 10-1-1991. It is the case of the appellants that there was a settlement arrived at between the Corporation and the Union of the employees and in terms of the said settlement of September, 1989, it was agreed that the employee who completes five years of continuous service would be entitled for permanency and accordingly permanency was granted to the respondent on his completion of five years of service. The industrial Court, after hearing the parties, held that as per the provisions of the Model Standing Orders applicable to the parties, on completion of 240 days with continuity of service, it requires arrangement to be made to provide benefits of permanency to the daily rated workers and in the case of the respondent he having completed 240 days of continuous service for the appellants, refusal on the part of the appellants to give permanency to the respondent amounts to indulgence in unfair labour practice as contemplated under Item no. 6 of Schedule-IV of the said Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred the said Writ petition No. 3429 of 1995 which came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge, confirming the finding of the industrial Court. Hence the present appeal.

( 3 ) DRAWING attention to the decision of this Court in punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola v. General secretary, Krishi Vidyapeeth Kamgar Union and others, reported in 1994 (69) FLR 181 and the State of maharashtra and Anr. v. R. S. Bhonde and Ors. , reported in (2005) 6 SCC 751, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the law on the point that claim for permanency cannot be entertained in the absence of availability of permanent vacant post duly approved by the competent authority being well-settled, and in the case in hand it was neither the case of the respondent that any such permanent vacant post was available for granting of permanency to the respondent in the said post nor in fact such a vacant post was available at the relevant time, the Industrial Court as well as the learned single judge erred in holding that the appellants had indulged in unfair labour practice under Item No. 6 of Schedule-IV of the said Act. According to the learned Advocate, the said finding is not only contrary to the materials on record but the same has been arrived at ignoring the well-settled law on the point in issue. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the plea about non-availability of permanent vacant post