PER A.S. OKA, J. :.

These Appeals have been taken up for final disposal together as by a common Judgment and Order dated 7th June, 2006, two Writ Petitions filed by the first Respondent have been decided by the learned Single Judge.

2. The first Respondent is a Cooperative Bank duly registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Appellants are the employees of the first Respondent Bank. On 4th March, 1989, a letter of demand was submitted by the Appellants and others to the first Respondent. The demand was for revision of pay scales, grant of dearness allowance at enhanced rate, etc. The Appellants issued notice of strike in accordance with subsection (1) of section 24 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short “the MRTU and PULP Act”). The said notice of strike was issued on 6th April, 1989 in accordance with the Rules framed in the year 1975 under the provisions of MRTU and PULP Act. By the said notice, the Appellants informed the first Respondent that the employees of the first Respondent were proposing to go on a strike with effect from 21st April, 1989 on account of failure of the first Respondent to comply with the demands.

3. The first respondent made an application under Sections 78, 79, 80A and 97 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short “BIR Act”) before the Labour Court at Solapur praying for a declaration that the strike commenced by the Appellants with effect from 21st April, 1989 be declared as illegal. The contention raised in the said application was that a call for strike was given without giving a notice of change as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 42 of the BIR Act. A reply was filed by the Appellants to the said application in which it was contended that a notice under subsection (1) of section 24 of the MRTU and PULP Act was given on 6th April, 1989. It was contended that as strike has been commenced after giving a notice under the MRTU and PULP Act, proceedings under BIR cannot be initiated in view of the bar created by section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act.

4. On 24th April, 1989, the Appellants filed a complaint under section 28(1) read with Item 8 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act against the first respondent before the Industrial Court at Solapur. The allegation in the said complaint was that the first respondent recruited the employees during the strike which was not an illegal strike. Initially, adinterim relief was granted in the said complaint.

The said adinterim order was vacated by order dated 16th May, 1991.

5. An application made by the first respondent under the BIR Act was decided by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Solapur by a Judgment and Order dated 5th August, 1989. The learned Judge rejected the application by holding that the strike continued by the employees of the first respondent since 21st April, 1989 is not illegal.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent preferred a Revision Application under section 85 of the BIR Act before the Member of the Industrial Court at Solapur. By a Judgment and Order dated 15th January, 1996, the said Revision Application was dismissed. The learned Member of the Industrial Court held that as a notice was given by the Appellants under subsection (1) of section 24 of the MRTU and PULP Act, the application made by the first Respondent under the BIR Act was not tenable. It was held that as a notice was issued under subsection (1) of section 24 of the MRTU and PULP Act, it was not necessary for the Appellant to serve a separate notice under subsection (2) of section 42 of the BIR Act.

6. As far as complaint filed by the Appellants is concerned, by a Judgment and Order dated 17th January, 1996, the said complaint was allowed and it was declared that the first respondent has committed unfair labour practice under Item 8 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act and, therefore, the first Respondent was directed to ceas