The petitioner is a registered Company. By this petition, the petitioner impugns judgment and order rendered by learned Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad, in complaint (ULP) No.52/2005. By the impugned judgment, the complaint filed by respondents No.1 to 22 came to be allowed and the petitioner was directed to allow them to resume their duties and also to pay full backwages to them from 8th March, 2005 until they have been reinstated.

2. The respondents No.1 to 22 filed complaint application (ULP) No.52/2005 alleging that the petitioner - Company committed unfair labour practices as envisaged under Items 9 and 10 of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. 1971 (for short, "the MRTU & PULP Act"). The respondent No.3 - A.B. Contractors was not initially joined in the proceedings instituted by the respondents No.1 to 22, who will be hereinafter referred as 'workmen', but was joined subsequently at the instance of the petitioner. For, the petitioner asserted that the workmen were the employees of the respondent No. 23 which is a duly registered Labour Contractor. The petitioner's case before the Industrial Court was that the workmen were not the employees of the petitioner, but were employed by the respondent No.23 - A.B. Contractors. The petitioner thus denied employer -employee relationship between itself and the respondents No.1 to 22. It is for such reason that the petitioner raised objection to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to try the complaint proceedings.

3. It is undisputed that the petitioner is a registered Company having its bottling plant in MIDC area at Aurangabad. The petitioner deals in water treatment and bottling of soft drinks having brand names viz. Coca-cola. Thumps-up, Fanta, etc. There are large number of employees engaged by the petitioner Company to work in its industrial unit.

4. The workmen alleged that they were well experienced and skilled workers having prior experience to work in other industrial units. They joined the petitioner Company at different dates between February. 2004 to February, 2005. They were regularly employed by the petitioner Company. The petitioner Company used to pay salaries to them. Each of them had worked for more than 240 days with the petitioner. Their work was of permanent nature. They were required to work for more than twelve (12) hours a day without grant of overtime pay. They were being paid wages only for eight (8) hours for a day. The petitioner had not contributed to the Provident Fund and E.S.I. as required under the law. They alongwith other various workmen decided to join a Workers' Union, namely, "Bhartiya Kamgar Sena" (for short, "B.K.S.) w.e.f. 7th March. 2005. A gate-meeting was held which was disrupted by the watchman and security guards of the petitioner. The security personnel of the petitioner had opened fire during the incident which occurred On 9th March. 2005 in order to disperse the workmen who were agitating their lawful demands. The workmen further alleged that they were not allowed to work in the premises of the factory. With the intervention of senior police officer, there was mutual settlement. The petitioner agreed to provide work to 30 workmen immediately and also to provide work to the remaining workers after few days. The talks of settlement were held between the representatives of the workers and the petitioner on 14th March, 2005 in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad. The petitioner allowed a batch of workers to join the duty in accordance with the settlement talks, but ultimately refused the " respondents No.1 to 22 (workmen) to resume the duty. The workmen alleged that such refusal to provide work to them was unfair labour practice adopted by the petitioner with ulterior motive and only because they had joined the Union (B.K.S.). Though they were directly employed by the petitioner, yet, false plea was raised by the employer that they w