JUDGMENT :

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

2. The challenge in these petitions is to the identical orders passed by the Industrial Court at Mumbai in the Revision Application preferred by the petitioners against the interim order passed by the Labour Court in the complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act, 1971), filed by the employees of the petitioners, alleging unfair labour practices, in an identical fact situation. Hence, all these petitions were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

3. The background facts leading to these petitions can be stated as under:-

a} The petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing and marketing of pharmaceutical products. Mr. Mahendra Chikne, respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 191 of 2023 came to be appointed as a Professional Sales Manager (PSM) in the services of the petitioner company vide letter dated 12th October, 2018. He was posted at Ahmadnagar and continued to be posted thereat. Mr. Nitin Sharma, respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition (St.) No. 295 of 2023 came to be appointed as PSM vide letter dated 6th April, 2018 at Muzaffarnagar (UP) and has worked at Muzaffarnagar at all times. Mr. Santosh Kadam, respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 407 of 2023 came to be appointed as PSM at Satara vide letter dated 7th April, 2018 and has worked at Satara during the entire tenure of his service with the petitioners.

b} Respondent No. 2 is the union registered under the Trade Unions Act and claims to represent the Professional Sales Representatives (PSRs), Medical Representative (MRs) and Technical Representatives (Trs).

c} The petitioners assert due to unsatisfactory performance each of the respondents were put on notice. They were first put on a booster plan for work improvement and thereafter on performance enhancement plan with a view to provide an opportunity to the respondents/employees to improve their work performance. The employees were periodically informed that there was no improvement in their performance despite the measures to improve the performance by putting them on performance enhancement plan.

4. The petitioners thus claimed to have terminated the services of Mahendra Chikne, respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 191 of 2023 by letter dated 24th February, 2021. Services of Nitin Sharma, respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 295 of 2023 were terminated vide letter dated 20th February, 2020. Likewise, the services of Sanotsh Kadam, respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 407 of 2023 were terminated vide letter dated 4th March, 2021. The petitioners assert that the services were terminated for poor work performance and failure to meet the level of performance despite the respondents/ employees having been provided adequate opportunity to improve the performance.

5. The respondents approached the Labour Court with a complaint of unfair labour practices under Item 1(a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Act, 1971. Since the allegations in all the 3 complaints are almost identical, reference is made to the allegations in the complaint of Mr. Nitin Sharma, respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition (St.) No. 295 of 2023, as a lead case.

6. Respondent No. 1 claimed he was initially working as a Marketing Executive in Vertex Marketing Services, a franchise of the petitioner No. 1 from 2nd March, 2017. Vide appointment letter dated 6th April, 2018, the petitioner No. 1 gave him a dressed up designation of Professional Sales Manager. Petitioner No.1 employs about 5000 Sales Promotion Employees (SPEs) including about 120 SPEs at Respicare Division for the work of promotion of its products of whom about 3000 are the members of respondent No. 2 union. The later has signed settlement with the petitioner No. 1.

7. Petitioner No. 1 regularly organized cyclical meetings