Heard finally by consent of the parties at admission stage.

2. The Petitioner is a Local Body/Authority/Corporation and it's challenge is to the Award dated 28 February 2011 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Tribunal, Sangli, thereby allowed the Reference in respect of Demand Nos. 8 and 11 raised by the Respondent/Mahapalika Kamgar Sabha (Sabha) and partly allowed the Demand No.8.

3. On 9 February 1998, the Petitioner is constituted by the Government of Maharashtra as a Municipal Corporation for the Cities of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad.

4. Prior to the constitution of Petitioner Miraj Municipal Council was functioning as a Municipal Council for the City of Miraj under Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (“The M. Council Act”). After 9/2/1998, petitioner governed and functions under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (for short, “BPMC Act”).

5. On 17.10.1996, Miraj Kamgar Union claimed to be a recognized union of the employees had raised certain demands against the then existed Miraj Municipal Council (The Municipal Council). When the same were not accepted and the conciliation officer, made a failure report on 8 December, 1995. The Government of Maharashtra, by its order dated 17 October, 1996, in exercise of powers under sections 10(1)(d) and 12(5) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act) referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Kolhapur for adjudication. It was registered as Reference (IT) 16 of 1991 and subsequently it was transferred to the Tribunal at Sangli and renumbered as Reference (IT) 6 of 1996.

6. On 17.06.1997 the Miraj Kamgar Union filed a statement of claim in the Industrial Tribunal. The Petitioner filed an application raising preliminary objections to the maintainability of the said reference. The same was rejected on 20 September 2004 as it was on the verge of final decision and kept certain points open. On 21.07.2005, the Petitioner challenged the order of 4.4.2005 on the ground that the scope of Reference was enlarged. Writ Petition was also dismissed by the High Court. On 17.07.2006, the Respondent filed an amendment application. The same was opposed. By order dated 15.01.2007, the amendment application was allowed. The challenge to the same order was also dismissed by the High Court. The parties led evidence in support of their case.

7. By the impugned judgment and award 28 February 2011, the Respondent's complaint has been partly allowed. The operative of the Award is as under:

“1) The Reference is answered partly in the affirmative.

2) It is hereby declared that the demand no. 4 and 7 are unjustified, the demand no.8 & 11 raised by the second party are justified and demand no.9 is partly justified.

3) The first party is hereby directed to make the employees involved in the demand no.8 excluding 10 in numbers viz.

4) Nandkishor Narayan Kambale,

13) Dnyaneshwar Topanna Kambale,

25) Suresh Bhupal Gade,

30) Sambhaji S. Salgar,

35)Prakash Gundu Athane,

27) Yasin Mahamad Hanif Momin,

36) Balasaheb Rajaram Lavand,

39) Akash Vasant Tavade,

40) Anant Kashiram Jagtap

41) Shabbir Malik Chabukswar

permanent in service after one year from the date of their initial appointment and to pay the monetary benefits of permanency such as wages, allowances, leaves and difference of wages excluding uniform in 2 installments. The names of the employees involved in demand no.8 are attached with this Award.

4) The first party is further directed to consider the date of permanency of 106 employees involved in the demand no.9 after completion of one year from the date of their initial appointment and considered the same only for the purpose of pension and not otherwise. The names of the employee involved in this demand are attached with this Award.

5) The party no.1 is also directed to pay 5% amount to the second party towards union fund from monetary benefits payable to the employees in 2 installments.

6) Award be sent to th