The central legal point established in the judgment is that workmen are entitled to permanency as per Model Standing Order 4(c) after completing a substantial period of service, and the lack of evidence supporting the respondent's claims can undermine their defense.

( 1 ) THESE petitions by workmen are directed against judgment rendered by learned Member, Industrial Court, Akola dismissing their complaint of unfair labour practice. The petitioners No. 1 and 2 in Petition No. 360 of 2002 Damodhar (Damu) Gawande and Ramrao Deshmukh were complainant Nos. 1 and 3 in Complaint ULP No. 3/1988 before learned Member, industrial Court and petitioner Jagdeo Wankhede in Writ Petition No. 4 of 2003 was complainant No. 2 in the said complaint. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, complainant Nos. 4 to 9 in the said complaint had been granted permanency and therefore, their grievances were redressed.

( 2 ) THE facts, which are material for deciding these petitions, are as under : the petitioners were in continuous service of the respondents as watchmen since 1971 / 1975. They were continued by respondent on daily wages. Though when the complainants filed the complaint, they were on the verge of retirement, they have by now attained superannuation. According to the petitioners, the respondent refused to pass on benefits of permanency to the petitioners in breach of the provisions of Model Standing Order 4 (c) which, amounted to unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act ("mrtu and PULP Act" for short ). The petitioners, therefore, approached Industrial Court at Akola, through their recognized union complaining that the respondent had indulged in unfair labour practice.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 employer, filed reply admitting that the petitioners were working as watchmen on daily wages under a Government scheme. Other complainants No. 4, 5, 8 and 9 were stated to be working as Helpers and Hand pump Repairers. Complainant No. 6 was stated to have left his job. It was stated that the services of the petitioners in these petitions were terminated by the respondent. The petitioners challenged the said termination before Labour Court and the petitioners were working in terms of the interim orders passed by the said court.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to respondent No. 1, against whom the complaint had been filed, it was only a supervising and implementing agency, and since the petitioners were working as watchmen under the Government scheme, the government was necessary party. Respondent No. 1 could not make petitioners permanent unless Government approved such an action. Respondent No. 1 stated that it had already approached Government for providing benefits of permanency to the petitioners, but had not received any clearance from the Government. It was also stated that the petitioners ought to have approached Maharashtra administrative Tribunal, since they were working under the Government scheme.

( 5 ) THUS, the gravamen of defence of respondent No. 1 was that the petitioners were not its employees but had been transferred to it under a government Scheme. There is no plea that the petitioners had entered service by backdoor or in breach of any rules. No evidence was tendered on behalf of the respondent before the Industrial Court. After considering the evidence tendered before it, the Industrial Court held that the petitioners are workmen and respondent is an Industry. It held that the complaint was not maintainable for want of necessary party. He also held that the petitioners failed to prove that respondent had engaged in unfair labour practice, holding that the entry of petitioners was not in accordance with rules and the Model Standing Order 4 (c)was not applicable to the petitioners. He, therefore, dismissed the complaint by the present petitioners. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners are before this Court.

( 6 ) I have heard Shri Mohokar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Advocate shri V. G. Wankhede, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (respondent before the Industrial Court) and respondent No. 3 Zilla Parishad, and learned Assistant government Pleader for respondents No. 2 and 4 Stat