The litigation background-

1. Petitioner No.1, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, “Corporation”) is a statutory authority established under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short, the MMC Act). The Petitioners are under various obligations to discharge their duties and functions, through its employees/workers. Petitioner No.1 is a “Local Body”/ “Authority”/“Employer” to provide public services, all sorts of Civil amenities and for smooth and proper function and to maintain all essential services/facilities, they appoint various types of employees for the respective Departments. Both are governed by their employment contract and related laws. The Petitioner-Corporation, for these activities, has more than 145000 employees, including permanent, seasonal and daily employees, excluding part timers. It has more than 1000 designations and more than 50 and odd related pay-scale grading wages and related benefits.

2. Respondent No.1 (Municipal Mazdoor Union) (for short, “MMU”) is one of the leading recognized Union among the other 36 unions of the employees of the Corporation. The Respondent's Union along with other affiliated unions consists of more than 60000 members/employees. Their total percentage of members is more than 70% of the employees. There are other unions having such membership in minority. There is no serious dispute about this.

3. From time to time, the Respondents union along with other unions have agreed/signed several settlements/agreements, Memorandum of Understanding (for short, “MOU”), for periodic revision in wages, allowances, leave facilities and other terms and conditions of employment with Petitioners through its officials for more than 5 decades.

4. The Respondents-Complainants have filed complaint (ULP) No. 326 of 2011 dated 18 October 2011, in the Industrial Court, at Mumbai, along with the Application for interim reliefs, against the Petitioners under Section 28 read with item Nos. 5 and 9 of Schedule-IV of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, MRTU & PULP Act).

5. It is relevant to note that on that day the following complaints have been pending before the same Industrial Court, as alleged, but not connected with the action revolving around circular dated 15 October 2011, issued by the Petitioners. Those complaints for and against the parties are Complaint Nos. 281 of 2011, 285 of 2011, 287 of 2011, 296 of 2011, 302 of 2011 and 311 of 2011.

6. The Petitioners have challenged final order dated 17 April 2012 passed by the Industrial Court, in complaint (ULP) No. 326 of 2011. The operative part of which is as under:

“:-ORDER:-

1 The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby partly allowed.

2 It is hereby declared that by denying exgratia payment to one class of employees on the ground that they have participated in the strike on 19/9/11 & 20/9/11, the respondents have committed unfair labour practice under item 5 & 9 of MRTU & PULP Act.

3 The respondents are directed to cease and desist from the proved unfair labour practice and to take affirmative action by making payment of Rs.11000/towards exgratia as per circular dtd. 15/10/11 to the employees with 12% interest from the date the amount has been deducted from their salary till the date of actual payment to these said employees. 30 days time from the date of receipt of this order is hereby granted to the respondents to comply with the order passed by this court.

4 parties to bear their own cost.”

7. The basic grievances of the Respondents-complainants were that the Petitioners by a circular dated 15 October 2011 declared and restricted to pay and/or to continue an exgratia amount of Rs.11000/to the employees, who had participated in the strike on 19 and 20 September 2011. The Complainants members, as alleged, thereby denied their rights to get annual festival exgratia payment, by treating them unequally/discriminately, in