R.V. Ghuge, J.

1. I have heard Shri Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri N.B. Jadhav, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents in 23 writ petitions, as mentioned above, at length.

2. In view of the order that I propose to pass, I am not formally issuing notices to the respondents. I have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Jadhav on behalf of the respondents workers.

3. The petitioner Municipal Council, Tuljapur was the original respondent in all the complaints before the Industrial Court at Latur and is the petitioner in all these matters. A common judgment and order dated 28/03/2014 in 30 writ petitions and the judgment and order dated 02/05/2014 in WP No. 11279/2014 are questioned in these petitions. Both the judgments are practically identical. The issue involved is identical and therefore I am deciding these petitions together.

4. The respondents had preferred several complaints before the Industrial Court at Latur under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act of 1971 (In short, State Act). In all the complaints, the respondents had invoked Item Nos. 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the State Act. All of them had claimed permanency, benefits incidental a