Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—Heard Sri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Ritvik Upadhya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner which is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mumbai and its factory and works at Renusagar and Renukoot, District Sonebhadra.

3. The Company is engaged in the manufacturing of Aluminum and its allied products. There is a Construction Division in the said Company engaged in construction related to the manufacturing process and expansion and modification work, although the Company has averred that the Construction Division is a totally temporary division, it has been in existence since 1972 continuously till date.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that workers of different skills and experience are engaged in view of specific nature of work concerning different projects undertaken by the Construction Division. The workers for such project works are given fixed term appointment with a specific condition stipulated in the appointment letter that they are being appointed purely on a temporary basis and their services could be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason. In every appointment letter, the period of expiry of appointment was specified.

5. The respondent No. 2 - Hindalco Workers Union, espoused an industrial dispute regarding termination of services of respondent Nos. 3 to 14 alleging that there was a wrongful termination of engagement of respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 18.2.1987 and respondent Nos. 4 to 14 w.e.f. 18.3.1987, and adjudication case No. 167 of 1988 was registered in the Labour Court, Varanasi.

6. After exchange of affidavits and also taking of statements of witnesses of the employers and the employees, the adjudication case was dismissed on 18.5.1990. The Hindalco Workers Union challenged the said Award of the Labour Court, Varanasi by filing Writ Petition No. 2958 of 1991.

7. This Court by its judgment and order dated 3.6.2006 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for reconsideration of material evidence including the consideration of question of unfair labour practice and to pass an order afresh. The matter was transferred by the Government from Labour Court, Varanasi to Labour Court, Mirzapur and registered as adjudication case No. 119 of 2008.

8. During the course of hearing of the said case, the respondent Nos. 3 to 14 moved three applications alleging that all the concerned twelve workmen had lost faith in the office bearers of the Union (the respondent No. 2) and wish to appoint their own representatives to conduct their case before the Labour Court.

9. These applications were objected to by the workers union and the employer, but were allowed by an order dated 30.1.2009. Two of the workers appeared before the Labour Court and gave statements on behalf of other ten workers. On behalf of the Company, four of its Officers appeared and gave statements with regard to nature of work carried out in Construction Division, the number of permanent workers employed in the Construction Division as well as the number of temporary workers.

10. It was alleged that the respondent Nos. 3 to 14 were employed in different projects of the Construction Division and when the work of construction was reduced, they were removed from service. The Construction Division carried out temporary projects of short duration not connected with the main manufacturing process and the work being temporary in nature, the employment therein was also temporary.

11. It was also alleged that the workmen had never worked for more than 240 days in the preceding calender year, and therefore the allegation that they were retrenched without fol