JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final disposal.

2. Petitioners have filed the present petition challenging Award dated 28 August 2019 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II (Tribunal) rejecting the Reference. The Reference was filed for deciding the demand of Petitioners for enhancement of wages on par with the wages revised as per the Memorandum of Settlement dated 29 April 2008 signed between the Bombay Customs House Agents Association and Transport & Dock Workers Union.

3. It would be necessary to set out few facts before I advert to the submissions canvassed by both sides. It is Petitioner’s case in the Petition that they are members of Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh. Respondent No. 1-M/s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd. is a partnership firm engaged in the business of freight broker and providing manpower services. Respondent no. 2-Shipping Services is engaged in the business of Clearing and Shipping Agent, Transport Contractor and Supervision and Administration work. That both the companies are sister concerns of Damani family, which has floated number of companies in the same field with the objective of saving taxes and depriving workmen of their due wages and benefits. It is pleaded that all the three Petitioners joined the services of Petitioner No. 2-M/s. Shipping Services on 1 June 1992, 3 September 1987 and 3 March 1986 respectively.

4. A Memorandum of Settlement dated 29 April 2008 was signed between the Bombay Customs House Agents Association which is an association of customs house agents (employers) and Transport & Dock Workers Union, under which the employers agreed to pay wages to its employees as stipulated in the settlement. The wages so agreed upon in the settlement were however not extended to Petitioners by Respondent No. 2-M/s. Shipping Services on the ground that it is neither a Customs House Agent nor a member of the Bombay Customs House Agents Association. A dispute was therefore raised by Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh and the same was referred to the Tribunal and was registered as Reference No. CGIT-2/10 of 2014. The workmen filed their Statement of Claims. A notice in the Reference was served on the Respondents who failed to file their written statements. The Tribunal proceeded to declare the Award dated 28 June 2017 holding that the workmen were entitled to receive dues amounting to Rs. 22,70,722/- alongwith interest.

5. Respondent No. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 13162/2017 challenging the Award dated 28 June 2017. This Court, by its order dated 8 December 2017, set aside the Award directing the Tribunal to decide the Reference afresh by granting opportunity to Respondent No. 2 to file pleadings/evidence before the Tribunal. Respondent No. 2 accordingly filed its Written Statement opposing the claim. After recording the evidence, the Tribunal proceeded to reject the Reference by its Award dated 28 August 2019, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

6. Mr. Anilkumar, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner would submit that Petitioners had specifically raised the issue of their services being utilised by M/s. Damani Shipping Private Ltd. by showing Petitioners in the employment of M/s. Shipping Services and that the said issue has not been considered by the Tribunal while rejecting the Reference. He would submit that despite Petitioners producing appointment orders issued by M/s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd. the Industrial Court has erroneously recorded that no appointment letters were produced to demonstrate that Petitioners are workmen appointed by M/s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd. That a specific case was put up in the Statement of Claim, as well as through the evidence that Damani Family has floated several companies and had arbitrarily shown Petitioners as employees of Shipping Services though they are actually the employees of M/s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd. That sin