JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner-Raigad Zilla Parishad seeks to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 13/12/2016 delivered by the Industrial Court at Thane, allowing Complaint (ULP) No.167 of 2014 and granting permanency and benefits incidental thereto, to the original 7 complainants.

3. The directions issued by the Industrial Court are as follows :

“The complaint is allowed as follows :-

(A) It is hereby declared that the respondents are engaged in an unfair labour practice falling under Item 6 of Schedule IV to the Act.

(B) The respondents are directed to cease and desist from the unfair labour practice hereinafter.

(C) The respondents are directed to give benefit of permanency to the complainants as per rules by taking appropriate steps.

(D) The respondents to pay cost of the litigation to the complainants.”

4. By an order dated 23/07/2018, this Court permitted the petitioner to amend the petition for adding prayers so as to take care of similarly situated employee as like the complainants. Consequent to the said order, the petitioner added pleadings in terms of paragraphs 5A to 5M and further added prayer clause (aa).

5. Having considered the strenuous submissions of the learned counsel/AGP on behalf of all the litigating parties, it is obvious that the Industrial Court, Thane has delivered a brief judgment, without even considering the evidence recorded. In five short paragraphs, making reference to exhibited documents, the Industrial Court, Thane has drawn it’s conclusions in the light of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, “the 1971 Act), which reads thus :-

“To employ employees as “badlis”, casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent employees.”

6. Though the Industrial Court, Thane has not referred to Standing Order 4C of the Model Standing Orders, framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, it has directed the Zilla Parishad to grant permanency to the complainants/daily wagers since they had worked for several years continuously as daily wagers and had completed 240 days in continuous service with the Zilla Parishad.

7. This issue of invoking Standing Order 4C of the Model Standing Orders for granting permanency was considered by me at the Aurangabad Bench in the matters of Mukhyadhikari, Nagar Parishad, Tuljapur Vs. Vishal Vijay Amrutrao and others [2016(3) ALL MR 113] and Municipal Council, Tuljapur Vs. Baban Hussain Dhale [WP No.1843/2015 and connected matters, decided on 26/02/2015]. I had concluded that Standing Order 4C cannot be invoked with reference to State Instrumentalities or such local authorities, which do not have the power of creating posts. When an establishment cannot create posts, the declaration of ULP under Item 6 cannot be made against such establishment since temporary workers cannot be regularized, in the absence of sanctioned permanent posts.

8. In 2016, there were contradictory orders passed by the learned Single Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition Nos.1209 of 2002, 1207 of 2002, 3087 of 2001 and 3436 of 2001. As such, a learned Single Judge Bench passed an order on 22/01/2015 in Writ Petition Nos.5191, 5199 to 5205, 5207 and 5520 of 2004 requesting The Hon’ble The Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to constitute a Larger Bench. Consequentially, the Larger Bench decided the issue in Municipal Council Tirora Vs. Tulsidas Baliram Bindhade [2016 (16) Mh.L.J. 867]. It was concluded that in service matters concerning State Instrumentalities, the Industrial Court cannot grant regularization by invoking Standing Order 4C of the MSO for granting permanency or regularization.

9. It is quite apparent from the proceedings before me that none of the litigating parties have rendered any assistance to the