The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents-workmen were not in 'uninterrupted service' as per clause 2(g)(viii) of the Model Standing Orders, and their complaints were hopelessly barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. These writ petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petitioner-Company has approached this Court by filing these writ petitions, challenging judgments and orders passed by the Industrial Court at Nagpur, whereby complaints filed by the first respondents in these writ petitions i.e. the workmen have been allowed and it has been held that the petitioner-Company indulged in unfair labour practice. Consequent to such finding rendered against the petitioner- Company, the Industrial Court has granted relief to the respondents-workmen by directing that the petitioner-Company shall provide employment to them and further to regularize their employment by granting them permanency from the dates of filing of the complaints. A further direction has been granted in favour of the respondents-workmen to the effect that they shall be granted continuity in service from the initial date of employment along with monetary benefits, including wages from the dates of filing of complaints. This Court granted ad interim stay in some of the writ petitions, while issuing notice and in some writ petitions it was directed that coercive steps shall not be taken for implementing the impugned judgments. The petitioner-Company has approached this Court raising various grounds of challenge, but before referring to them, it would be appropriate to first refer to the background facts leading up to filing of the present writ petitions.

4. The petitioner is a limited company having its establishments in various parts of the country, including an establishment at the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Area, Hingna Road, Nagpur, wherein the petitioner-Company manufactures tractors and components. It is governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Although initially the petitioner-Company used to manufacture agricultural implements, hydraulic control valves and components of jeeps and tractors, around the year 1990 and onwards the petitioner-Company started manufacturing tractors and its components in the aforesaid establishment at Nagpur. Due to fluctuation of demand in the market, the petitioner-Company was required to engage temporary workers over and above the strength of permanent workers, as there was temporary increase in work of permanent nature during the period between 1990 and 2001. It is during this period that the respondents-workmen were employed in the aforesaid establishment of the petitioner-Company for specific periods of time. The last dates of employment of the respondents-workmen herein range from the year 1987 to the year 2001. It is undisputed that the respondents-workmen approached the Industrial Court in the years 2010-2011, by filing complaints seeking direction for regularization in employment.

5. But before this Court refers to the complaints filed by the respondents-workmen herein, it would be relevant to mention the fact that 207 workers employed temporarily during the aforesaid period between 1990 and 2001 had filed complaints under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1971”) seeking permanency. By a common order dated 19.03.2003, the said complaints were partly allowed and direction was given to the petitioner-Company to grant permanency to 149 such temporary employees, who had completed 240 days of service. The petitioner-Company challenged the said common order before this Court. On 26.04.2003, an agreement was executed between the petitioner-Company and the workmen, represented by a registered trade union, whereby permanency was granted to 155 workmen, including the aforesaid 149 temporarily employed workmen. It is relevant that 36 employees, who wer