1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

2. This common order disposes of above two petitions challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 31st July, 2017 granting increase in wage of Rs.3,000/- per month to each of the workers of the petitioner. It has also stayed the implementation of settlement dated 12th July, 2017 entered into between the petitioner company and majority of workers employed by their factory at Mora. Respondent No.1 is the complainant Union and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are also Unions operating in the petitioner company at Mora.

3. In Writ Petition No.9293 of 2017 the petitioners are two Unions operating in respondent no.1 – plant. These Unions are respondent nos.2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 9199 of 2017. The challenge in this petition is directed against the same order impugned in Writ Petition No.9199 of 2017. The Unions are aggrieved by the order and judgment which rejected the original interim application and stayed implementation of the settlement dated 12th July, 2017 till pendency of the complaint and ordered increase in payment of Rs.3,000/- per month to all workmen. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that increase in wages was restricted to Rs.3,000/- since according to them they were entitle for higher increase in wages and other benefits but the Industrial Court has restrained the parties from implementing the settlement. Considering that both parties were aggrieved and have filed separate petitions which are directed to be heard together. Considering the scope of dispute it was appropriate that the petitions be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

4. The facts in brief are as follows : Writ Petition No.9199 of 2017 being earlier in point of time, reference is made to the facts of this petition. The respondent no.1 Union is stated to recently represent few workers employed by the petitioner. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are also Unions operating in the petitioner company (“the company”). The company and said respondent nos.2 and 3 and one Raigad Shramik Sangathana had entered into Long Term Settlement dated 30th August, 2011 which expired by efflux of time on 31st August, 2014. The respondents meanwhile submitted a Charter of Demands on 18th July, 2014 seeking revision of wages. According to the petitioner - company and as canvassed by Mr. Talsania, learned Senior Advocate meetings were held from time to time with the Union and they had entered into an amicable settlement of demands raised by the Union as well as the company's demand in relation to productivity etc.

5. The demands made by respondent no.1 were admitted in Conciliation and then referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Reference (IT) No.48 of 2015. The company challenged the same in Writ Petition No.646 of 2016 since Reference did not include the demands of the company regarding productivity. The High Court vide order dated 25th July, 2017 held that the issue of productivity will be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal in reference along with demands of the Union. While Reference (IT) No.48 of 2015 was still pending, the respondent no.1 – Union filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practice under Items 1(c), 2(a) and (b) of Schedule-II of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. For ease of reference these items are reproduced below :

“1, To interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to organise, form, join or assist a trade union and to engage in concerned activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, that is to say –

(a) ….. …... …..

(b) ….. …... …..

(c) granting wage increase to employees at crucial periods of union organisation, with a view to undermining the efforts of the union at organisation.

2. To dominate, interfere with, or contribute, support – financial or otherwise - to any union, that is to say –

(a) an employer taking an active interest in organizing