J. N. PATEL J.:- By this Letters Patent Appeal the Petitioners, employees of the respondent, have impugned the judgment and order dated 3rd March, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5845 of 1999 which came to be filed by the respondent employer challenging the decision of the Industrial Court, Pone in Complaint (ULP) No.70 of 1999 holding that the employer had committed unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971) thereby directing the employer to continue the respondents employees 1 to 40 in their services and to pay each of the respondents Rs. 1000/- toward. compensation and a further sum of Rs. 1000/- each towards cost. The Industrial Court, inter alil, held that Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 were functionally integrated and together employed more than 100 employees and, therefore, the provisions of Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were applicable and as the Petitioner has failed to obtain permission of the appropriate government, it has committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.

2. The complainant employees had filed a complaint against the respondent employer, namely, Shekoba Auto Private Limited and Neotronics (P) Ltd., It was their case that the respondent employers have two units registeTed under the Factories Act, 1948 located in the same building. Originally, the employer of the complainant employees had a manufacturing unit known as Electro Components Company in the same premises. It is somewhere on or about 24th September, 1978 the said M/s. Electra Components Company got bifurcated in two units and informed the employees that their services stood transferred to another unit with effect from 1st November, 1978 on the same terms and conditions without break. it is their case that Auto Components Company was changed to Shekoba Auto (P)Ltd., and the name of Electro Components Company was changed to Neatronics (P) Ltd., i.e., the original respondent no.2 and the employees of Electro Components Company were absorbed in these two companies. According to the complainant employees both respondent nos. 1 and 2 are very closely knit units and their production is interchangeable and the employees of respondent nos. 1 and 2 are frequently asked to work in each other factory and the wages are adjusted in their books. It is also their case that the sales and purchases are common. The directors are also common and there is one recognized union in both the respondents i.e. Sarva Shramik Sanghatana and that the negotiations and settlements for employees of both the units are held in common meeting though separate settlements are signed and, therefore, according to the complainant employees there is functional integrality between the respondent no. 1 and 2. It is their case that respondent no. 1 employs 40 employees and 4 staff whereas the respondent no. 2 employs 69 employees. Both of them taken together are more than 100 employees and, therefore, the E provisions of Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the LD. Act) are applicable. The respondent ( no. 1 i.e. Shekoba Auto (P) Ltd., issued a letter dated 17th March, 1999 to all the complainant employees retrenching the complainants from 21st march, 1999 and this led to the challenge of their retrenchment by filing a complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.

3. It was the case of the complainant employees that the reasons for retrenchment are patently false, the calculation of compensation, service are also incorrect. No seniority list was displayed seven days prior to retrenchment so also no permission to retrench the employees under Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was obtained. Hence there is non-complia