JUDGMENT

S.B. Mhase, J.—These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the common judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 3831 of 1995, 2441 of 1995, 2442 of 1995 and 5801 of 1999 and 1886 of 1997. The learned Single Judge has disposed of these writ petitions by a common judgment, because the common point had arisen for consideration. The matter pertains to the employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"). The employees involved in these writ petitions are the cleaners engaged by the Corporation for cleaning the buses and other premises of the Corporation on piece rate basis during the shift. The Caste Tribe Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the Union".) is a registered Union under the Trade Unions Act and was functioning in the Corporation. The said Union had filed Complaint (ULP) No. 542 of 1991 and Complaint (ULP) No. 574 of 1991 before the Member Industrial Court, Thane. The Union has alleged that the Corporation had/is indulged and indulging in the unfair labour practice under Item Nos. 5, 6, 9 & 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act".). Complaint (ULP) Nos. 542 and 574 of 1991 were heard by the Member, Industrial Court and by a common Judgment dated 25.4.1992 disposed of those complaints. The Member Industrial Court has found that the Union has failed to prove unfair labour practice under Item Nos. 9 & 10 of the said Act. The court has further held that the Complainant - Union was not recognised under the said Act, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the said Act, Union had no authority to file the complaint for employees with respect to unfair labour practice under Item No. 6 of the said Act and no relief was given. However, by partially allowing the complaint, the Court found that the Corporation committed unfair labour practice under Item No. 5 of the said Act by paying unequal wages to the casual labourers as compared to the permanent sweepers and cleaners. Therefore, the trial court directed that the casual labourers doing the work of cleaning the buses be paid equal wages as being paid to the permanent labourers doing the work of sweepers.

2. Being aggrieved with this judgment and order of the Member Industrial Court, Writ Petition No. 2441 of 1995 was filed by the Corporation. Writ Petition Nos. 2442 of 1995 and 3831 of 1995 were filed by the Complainant - Union, since the complaint was dismissed by the Member, Industrial Court in respect of Item Nos. 6 & 9 of Schedule- IV of the said Act. LPA No. 204 of 2001 is directed against Writ Petition No. 3831 of 1995. LPA No. 205 of 2001 is directed against Writ Petition No. 2441 of 1995 and LPA No. 206 of 2001 is directed against Writ Petition No. 2442 of 1995. They are before this court for consideration.

3. Apart from above referred LPAs, which have arisen from ULP Complaint No. 542 of 1991 and 574 of 1991 filed by the Union, 19 other employees who were doing the work of sweeper had filed a complaint (ULP) No. 442 of 1992 before the Member Industrial Court against the Divisional Controller, Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation, Thane. In the said complaint, the same dispute as mentioned in (ULP) No. 542 & 574 of 1991 was raised. The said complaint was disposed of by the Member Industrial Court, Thane by order dated 6.2.1997 holding that the Corporation committed unfair labour practice under Item No. 6 of Schedule- IV of the said Act and directed the Corporation to give to the complainants with effect from 3.8.1992, i.e., from the date of filing of the complaint the status of permanent employee and other monitory benefits equal to the regular sweepers. The Member, Industrial Court, however, dismissed the said complaint holding that the complainant has failed to prov