1. Since, common issue is involved in all these writ petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These writ petitions take exception to the judgment and order dated 20.10.2010 thereby allowing the complaints filed by the present respondents - original complainants and declaring that the respondent therein – present petitioner has engaged in and has been engaging in unfair labour practices under Item 5 and 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, referred to as the said Act), and directing the petitioner herein to cease and desist from engaging in such unfair labour practices. The petitioner herein was further directed to regularize the services of the complainants from the date of the order and to give them all consequential monetary benefits within two months from the said order.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner – Municipal Council was respondent in the Complaint (ULP) No.125/2008 to 130/2008 and other similar complaints filed by the original complainants - respondents herein before the Industrial Court Maharashtra, Bench at Jalna, which came to be allowed by the Industrial Court.

4. The case of the complainants is that they are workmen of petitioner - municipal council, which is an industry and they were appointed by the municipal Council on various dates in the year, 1994. Since their appointment, they are working continuously and they had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year. They are being paid salary as per minimum wages and their work is satisfactory and the work is available throughout the year. It is submitted that the work of the complainants is of permanent nature and the petitioner herein with an object to deprive them from getting benefits of permanency, they are not made permanent and thus, the present petitioner is engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the said Act.

5. It is further submitted that as per Model Standing Orders, 1946 Clause 4(b) and 4(c) and Bombay Industrial Standing Order Rules, it is necessary to make the complainants regular in service as soon as they completed 240 days continuous service, which is not done by the present petitioner and it amounts to an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner Municipal Council has passed Resolution on 11.1.2001 and decided to absorb the complainants and other employees. However, two employees who are junior to the complainants are made permanent and thus petitioner herein shown favouritism to those junior employees and committed unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the said Act. Hence, the complainants came to be filed under Section 28 of the said Act.

6. The petitioner - municipal council filed written statement and denied the allegations of unfair labour practice in toto. It is submitted that the Model Standing Order is not applicable to the employees of petitioner herein and there are separate Rules of recruitment and recruitment is made on vacant and sanctioned posts after approval of Director, Municipal Council, Mumbai. It is submitted by the municipal Council that Executive Committee of the petitioner herein is necessary party and complainants are not tenable on that count.

7. The petitioner - original respondent further submitted that complainants have been engaged on daily wages whenever work was available and the said work is not perennial in nature and also not available throughout the year. So also posts on which complainants are working, are not vacant and sanctioned by competent authority. Hence, complainants are not entitled for regularization in service as held in the judgment of Supreme Court in case of State of Karnataka and others vs Umadevi and others reported in 2006 II CLR 261.

8. The petitioner - original respondent further submitted that the Governme