The main legal point established in the judgment is that the workers were deemed employees of the Petitioners and that the Petitioners' actions constituted unfair labor practices under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Sakhadeo, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Respondents. By consent of the parties, present three Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing.

2. This is a bunch of three Writ Petitions filed by Petitioner No. 1 - Pimpri-Chinchwad Mahanagarpalika and Petitioner No. 2 – Prashasan Adhikari, Shikshan Mandal Karyalaya, Pimpri-Chinchwad Mahanagarpalika. The principal contesting party is Respondent No. 1 i.e. National Workers Federation.

3. In Writ Petition No. 7531 of 2019, challenge is to the impugned judgment & order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Pune in Revision Application (ULP) No. 90/2018. In Writ Petition No. 7557 of 2019, challenge is to the impugned judgment & order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Pune in Revision Application (ULP) No. 88/2018 and in Writ Petition No. 7558 of 2019, challenge is to the impugned judgment & order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Pune in Revision Application (ULP) No. 89/2018.

4. The facts concerning all three Writ Petitions are identical and therefore for the purpose of convenience, facts in Writ Petition No. 7531 of 2019 are narrated here under:-

4.1. According to Petitioners sometime in June 2005, Petitioner No. 2 i.e. Headmaster of Shikshan Mandal Karyalaya appointed persons/workmen purporting to be the members of Respondent No. 1 Union on temporary basis to do manual/cleaning work in the schools run by the Petitioners. Petitioners contend that there was no employer - employee relationship, there was no privity of contract with the workers and no appointment order was issued in favour of any workman. The workers continued working with Petitioner No.1 for a period of 3 years on the agreed honorarium/payment/salary/compensation of Rs. 2000/- per month.

4.2. These workers were employed in various schools run by Petitioner No. 1 Corporation and controlled by Respondent No. 2 i.e. Headmaster, Shikshan Mandal of Petitioner No. 1. The workers were predominantly employed for cleaning work and in the course of their duties did the cleaning of urinals, laboratories etc. in the schools. The workers admittedly worked for 8 to 10 hours per day between 2005 and 2008. It is an admitted position that the workers completed 240 days of continuous services but were not made permanent. Sometime in 2008, the workers learnt that Petitioners were in the process of engaging private contractors for the purpose of cleaning work. The workers and the Petitioners had a meeting with the Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Pune on 23.08.2008 during which it was decided that the workers shall be continued in service despite the engagement of the private contractor. Petitioners thereafter appointed Bharat Vikas Group (India) Ltd (BVG) as an expert agency/contractor to carry out the work of cleaning and called upon the workers to be enrolled as contractual employees under the contractor i.e. BVG so that their services could be continued through the contractor. Some of the workers switched over and joined the contractor.

4.3. Being aggrieved that without any charge-sheet being issued or inquiry being held, the services of the workers were terminated by Petitioners and they were told to re-engage themselves through BVG, the workers filed Complaint (ULP) No. 40/2008 through the National Workers Federation i.e. Union in the 4th Labour Court at Pune. In the complaint that was filed, Union prayed for declaration that Petitioners had entered into unfair labour practice and sought permanent injunction restraining the Petitioners from dismissing the workers from its services and sought regularization in the services.

4.4. The claim of the Union was resisted by Petitioners by filing written statement below Exh. C-08. All contentions of the Union were denied by Petitioners. Firstly it was denied that the workers were employees of the Petitioners on the ground that there was no employer - employee relationship be