R. M. Lodha, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) In this group of 26 appeals, the common judgment dated March 3, 2008 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur is under challenge at the instance of the employer.
(3.) In light of the order that we intend to pass, it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that in the complaints by the present respondents seeking declaration of unfair labour practices on the part of the employer under Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices, Act, 1971 (for short "MRTU and PULP Act", the Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Nagpur Bench) Nagpur, in its order dated March 19, 2003 held that complaints were not maintainable under Item 6 of Schedule IV to the MRTU and PULP Act. The Industrial Court also held that the complaints were liable to be rejected insofar as it related to Items 5 and 10 of Schedule IV but as regards the unfair labour practice under Item No.9 of Schedule IV, although relief was granted by the Industrial Court to 149 temporary workmen who had completed 240 days of continuous service, no relief was granted to the present respondents as they have not completed 240 days of continuous service as required under the Model Standing Orders. The Industrial Court, in its order, in respect of the present respondents held as follows : "From the evidence adduced by the complainants in all other complaints it appears that in all 58 complainants have not at all completed 240 days working during the entire period they were in the employment of the respondent. The list of these complainants is at Ex.101. Hence, their confirmation in service as per clause 4-C of the Model Standing Orders does not arise." ;