R.V. Ghuge, J.

1. In all these matters, the petitioners have challenged the common judgment dated 09/11/2016 delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar by which complaint (ULP) Nos. 1/2012 and connected identical complaints have been dismissed.

2. I have considered the strenuous submissions of Mr. Barde, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Hon, the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 1/Co-operative Society and Mr. Malte, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. None appears for respondent No. 3 MERC though served. With the assistance of the learned Advocates, I have gone through the petition paper books.

3. The undisputed factors in all these identical cases are as under :-

[a] In 1971, the Government of Maharashtra issued a license to respondent No. 1 Mula Pravara Electricity Co-operative Society Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') for distribution of electricity in some parts of the Ahmednagar District.

[b] The Society would purchase electricity from the erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board, presently respondent No. 2/Electricity Distribution Co. (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and supply it to agriculturists.

[c] About 1500 workers were engaged by the Society.

[d] The work allotted to such workers was with regard to ensuring the distribution of electricity, maintenance of machines and meters and connected affairs.

[e] Considering the policy of the Government at the relevant time, no meters were installed with agriculturists in the said Ahmednagar District.

[f] There was no method for precisely measuring the actual consumption of electricity by the agriculturists.

[g] The standard method of approximately assessing the consumption of electricity by the agriculturists, was on the basis of the capacity of the motors and electrical equipments used by the agriculturists for agriculture purposes.

[h] The Society had to pay the charges for consumption of electricity as per actual consumption, to the company.

[i] Considering the above imbalance, in 2010, the Society owed about Rs. 2,300 crores to the Government as it ran into losses.

[j] One of the reasons for non-renewal of the license w.e.f. 31/01/2011 was the high arrears of payments by the Society.

[k] From 31/01/2011, the State Government refused to renew the Electricity Distribution License to the Society.

[l] The company was one of the applicants for seeking distribution license in 2011.

[m] The MERC/respondent No. 3 granted the distribution license to the Company for distribution of electricity.

[n] The MERC has worked out the modalities though litigation in this regard is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

[o] From 01/02/2011, the Society was left with no work and all the workers became idle.

[p] The Society had no work to offer to these workers as its contract of distribution of electricity was brought to an end.

[q] There were 3 unions of workers active in the Society namely the (1) Mula Pravara Veej Kamgar Sangh, (2) Ahmednagar Zilla Shramik Sabha and the petitioner (3) Rashtriya Mula Pravara Veej Kamgar Sangh.

[r] The first two unions represented about 1300 workers and the third union represented less than 200 workers.

[s] There was a voluntary retirement scheme floated in 2008 which had subsequently been concluded.

[t] It appears that these workers had approached the Society for seeking a solution to the loss of work and the Society agreed to entertain applications for VRS.

[u] The VRS floated on 26/07/2011 was offered on the same terms and all the workers notwithstanding their Union affiliations, applied for acceptance of the VRS. However, the dead lock continued.

[v] On 12/12/2012, a settlement was signed under section 2(p) and 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (wrongly typed as 1948), with the first two unions representing the majority who agreed to accept the benefits of the VRS with the cut-off date 31/05/2012 for the purpose of calculating the payments.

[w] Those employees, who were on the roll