JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the judgment and order dated 21st January, 2022 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court at Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 366 of 2018 whereby the learned Member was persuaded to hold and declare that the petitioners/ employers engaged in unfair labour practices 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 Act, 1971) and direct the petitioners to cease and desist from engaging in unfair labour practices and quash and set aside the letter dated 28th July, 2018 and email dated 30th July, 2018 and the consequent action and also direct the petitioners to grant medical and monetary benefits as well as leave facilities which the respondents/ complainants were enjoying prior to August, 2018 and extend the same service conditions which the respondents/ complainants were enjoying before they were sought to be changed by the communications which were quashed and set aside.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this petition can be stated as under:-

a} Petitioner No. 1 is a general hospital run by a public charitable trust. Petitioner No. 2 is the Chief Executive Officer of petitioner No. 1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6/ original complainants are the permanent employees of the petitioner No.1.

b} Respondents were appointed in different capacities in different departments of petitioner No. 1, initially in the capacity of, “workman” as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act, 1947). They have rendered services in the range of 15 to 30 years. They were the members of “Bhatia General Employees Union”, a registered trade union.

c} In the year 2008-09 the respondents were, according to the petitioners, promoted to the managerial cadre. Respondent No. 1 Hanamant Raje was promoted as Jr. Patient Welfare Officer. Respondent No. 2 Anjana Phade and No. 4 Vidhya Pawar were promoted as Technical Supervisor- Blood Bank and Jr. Technical Supervisor- Blood Bank, respectively, and respondent No. 3 Jyoti Boricha, No. 5 Jasmine Karol and No. 6 Rajshree Divekar as Technical Supervisor-Laboratory.

d} It is the case of the petitioners that on the establishment of the petitioner No. 1 there are grades of employees. Employees up to grade F are the members of the union. Their service conditions are governed by settlements entered into between the employer and the union, from time to time. The employees who are placed in the managerial cadre and the technical supervisors are governed by separate service conditions determined by the management. Post promotion, the respondents came to be placed in L1 grade.

e} Despite the promotion in the year 2008-09 and a subsequent promotion to L2 grade and consequent higher pay scale, the respondents were inadvertently extended the benefits which were available to the workman, like unlimited medical benefits, leave travel allowances, 30 days of privilege leave, 12 days of casual leave and 15 days sick leave, which the managerial cadre officers were not entitled to. When the said inadvertent mistake was realized, the petitioners addressed a letter dated 28th July, 2018 to the respondents and 14 other persons so as to bring emoluments and benefits at par with rest of the officers and managers. Barring the respondents, rests of the officers/managers accepted the revised dispensation. However, the respondents filed a complaint of unfair labour practices.

4. The substance of the complaint of the respondents/ complainants was that despite the promotion, nature of work performed by them prior to and after the purported promotion remained the same. They continued to perform the duties of technical and operational nature. Their duties had no trappings of supervisory contro