Ranjana Desai, J.

The petitioner is a Public Sector Undertaking of the Central Government engaged in the activity of manufacture and marketing of chemicals and fertilizers. The 1st respondent is the Chairman of the Grocery Markets and Shops Board constituted under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (“the Mathadi Act” for short). The 2nd respondent is the Grocery Markets and Shops Board (“the Board” for short). The 3rd respondent is the Commissioner of Labour and the 4th respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The 5th respondent is the Maharashtra Rajya Mathadi, Transport and General Kamgar Union and the 6th respondent is the Transport & Dock Workers’ Union.

2. The case of the petitioner needs to be shortly stated.

a) The petitioner is a manufacturer and distributor of fertilizers and industrial chemicals. There are about 5000 regular workers employed with the petitioner. The petitioner has two plants in Maharashtra, one at Thal in Raigad District and one at Trombay. In addition to the said 5000 regular workers, the petitioner also engaged the services of about 700 Mathadi workers at its factory at Thal and about 915 Mathadi workers at its Trombay unit. The petitioner is registered with the Board at its Thal unit. The Mathadi workers at Thal are engaged through the Board. The Board has a statutory duty to regulate and revise the terms and conditions of service of Mathadi workers registered with it.

b) Though the petitioner was paying wages and levy in excess of Rs.11000/- per month per worker, the Mathadi workers were demanding higher wages from the petitioner by submitting charter of demands to the petitioner for the year 1997-98. Though the negotiations were on in respect of the said charter of demands, the Mathadi workers gave strike notices to the petitioner in or about July, 2000. The petitioner called upon the Board to act against the erring Mathadi workers and pointed out that no increase in wages was warranted as the petitioner was already paying higher wages to Mathadi workers than any other employers in the State and the same was affecting the cost of the petitioner’s products. However, instead of taking action against erring workers the 1st respondent by an order dated 18/7/2000 declared an interim increase in wages of Mathadi workers by 10%.

c) The petitioner, therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 1840 of 2000 in this court challenging the said increase. This court by order dated 4/5/01 quashed and set aside the said order and remitted the issue of determination of wages of the Mathadi workers to the Board. The Board was directed to give a hearing to the petitioner and the union and pass a reasoned order within 8 weeks. As an interim measure the petitioner was directed to pay 10% increase in wages effective from 1/1/01 only and not retrospectively. This was without prejudice to the petitioner’s contention that no increase was warranted. This court clarified in the order that this payment would be adjusted against further payments, if the Board concluded after hearing parties that no increase was warranted.

d) According to the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner made several written and oral submissions before the Board that wages should not be increased any further. Thereafter as a measure of goodwill the petitioner agreed to give rise of 10% in the wages for the period 1/7/97 to 1/1/01 and a further 8% rise from 1/1/2001 to 30/6/04. The petitioner agreed to this on the condition that the number of Mathadi workers would be reduced.

e) Instead of declaring the increased wages as agreed by the petitioner the Board was proposing to declare two wage revisions in total disregard of what was agreed to by the parties. The petitioner, therefore, addressed letter dated 2/3/02 to the Board and letter dated 28/2/02 to the Principal Secretary Industries Energy and Labour Department of the Government of Maharashtra strongly protesting a