JUDGMENT :

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

2. By this petition, the petitioner-hospital for children seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 06/01/2020 delivered by the learned Industrial Court, Mumbai, vide which, Complaint (ULP) No.305 of 2016 filed by the complainants has been allowed and the petitioner is restrained from evicting respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the premises occupied by them.

3. The petitioner has put forth prayer Clause 27(a) as under:

“27. The Petitioners, therefore, pray:

a] that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of the Complaint [ULP] No. 305 of 2016 and after going into the legality, veracity and propriety of the impugned Judgment dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Learned Member of the Industrial Court of Maharashtra at Mumbai, be pleased to quash and set aside the Judgment dated 06.01.2020 and be pleased to dismiss the Complaint [ULP] No. 305 of 2016.”

4. The respondents have preferred the ULP complaint before the Industrial Court on the premise that the petitioner has committed unfair labour practices (“ULP”, in short) under items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“the 1971 Act”, in short). By the impugned order, the Industrial Court has held that the petitioner has committed ULP under item 5 of Schedule IV. The complaint to the extent of items 9 and 10, has been dismissed.

5. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the employees, who were issued with a notice dated 6/08/2016, calling upon them to vacate the quarters occupied by them, within a period of about two months, to be specific, on or before 30/09/2016. These two employees approached the Industrial Court on 30/09/2016, i.e. the last day of the period granted to them to hand over the possession of the quarters. The Industrial Court directed status qua to be maintained and, such relief continued till the delivery of the impugned judgment on 06/01/2020.

6. Item 5 of Schedule IV of the 1971 Act reads as under:

“SCHEDULE IV

General Unfair Labour Practices on the part of employers.

5. To show favouritism or partiality to one set of workers, regardless of merits.”

7. It is, by now, well settled that an employee or a union invoking item 5 has to establish that the employer has shown favouritism or partiality to one set of workers, regardless of merits. There is no dispute that there is no recognized Union in the petitioner-establishment. Respondent No.1-Union, which espoused the cause of the two employees by preferring the ULP complaint at issue, had preferred proceedings under Section 11 of the 1971 Act for seeking recognition of it’s Union. The Industrial Court has dismissed the said complaint and has refused to accord recognition to the said Union.

8. It is equally well settled that the complainant, upon invoking item 5, has to specifically set out the details of the particular persons or employees, who constitute a particular privileged set of workers. The pleadings must indicate the existence of such a set of workers. The pleadings must further indicate that the employer is showing favouritism or is indulging in partiality in favour of such a set of workers, which is regardless of the merits inter se between the complainant and such set of workers.

9. The learned counsel for the original complainants has strenuously canvassed that the Union and the employees have succeeded in identifying a particular set of workers, who were being favoured, regardless of merits. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respondents, I have perused the entire pleadings in the complaint. Barring paragraph 3(n), there are no pleadings to satisfy the ingredients of item 5. Paragraph 3(n) reads as under:

“3(n) The Complainants submit that the service quarters allotted to the Complainants No. 2 and 3 are from servant quar