JUDGMENT :

A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since similar challenges have been raised in these writ petitions they are being decided together by this common judgment.

3. The petitioners who are about sixty employees of Municipal Council, Mul have approached this Court challenging the order dated 12.12.2008 that has been issued by the Director of Municipal Administration whereby while regularizing services of eighteen petitioners with the Municipal Council, Mul certain conditions have been imposed in the matter of continuity of service, seniority, pay fixation and other service benefits. A challenge is also raised to the subsequent order dated 03.05.2011 issued by the said authority imposing similar conditions on the remaining forty-two petitioners.

4. Facts in brief are that the petitioners were engaged as Junior Clerks, Peons and Labourers with Municipal Council, Mul. Their initial engagement was on daily wages. Since they were discharging duties continuously for a long period, they sought their absorption on the rolls of the Municipal Council. As their services were not regularised, the petitioners filed various complaints under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the “Act of 1971”) before the Industrial Court, Nagpur. By its common judgment dated 29.11.1991, the Industrial Court allowed all the complaints by observing that:

“The Complaints (ULPN) Nos. 133, 291 to 293, 608 and 653 all of 1990 are allowed. It is declared that the respondent has engaged in unfair labour practice as envisaged in Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The respondent is directed to cease and desist from practicing the said unfair labour practice.

The respondent is further directed to regularise the services of the complainants from the date they completed 240 days of their service, from the date of their appointment.”

5. The Municipal Council challenged the aforesaid judgment of the Industrial Court in Writ Petition No. 391/1992. This writ petition, however, came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.04.2005. The said proceedings were not restored as a result of which the order passed by the Industrial Court attained finality. Thereafter, the petitioners sought implementation of the aforesaid decision of the Industrial Court. On 20.10.2008, the Urban Development Department through its Secretary issued a communication to the Director of Municipal Administration calling upon said authority to take appropriate steps in that matter of regularizing the services of the said employees. Pursuant thereto on 12.12.2008, the Director of Municipal Administration issued an order regularizing the services of eighteen employees named therein subject to conditions. The conditions imposed were that the services rendered on vacant post would be taken into consideration for the purpose of pensionary benefits from the date of such absorption. However, the concerned employees were held not entitled to any service benefits in the form of continuity, seniority, promotion and increments for a period of five years. Such note was directed to be taken in their service books. Another condition imposed was that for a period of five years from the date of absorption, the said employees would not be entitled to any dearness allowance. However, it was for the Municipal Council to make such payment of dearness allowance through its funds. For the remaining forty-two employees a similar order was issued on 03.05.2011 imposing identical conditions.

The petitioners thus made various representations protesting against the conditions imposed while regularizing there services. The Chief Officer of the Municipal Council issued a communication to the Urban Development Department on 28.02.2017 for withdrawal of the said conditions but such a request was turned down on 13.09.2017. The State Government then on 16.02.2018 sought info