(1.) THE petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the order dated 28-6-2002 passed by respondent No. 4 i. e. the industrial Court. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's Revision Application against the order of the Labour Court dated 29-2-1997. The order of the Labour Court in turn rejected the petitioner's Complaint (ULP) No. 38 of 1990 seeking a declaration that respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 1 (a), (b) and (f) of Schedule IV of the maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour practices Act, 1971, a direction that respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labour practices complained of and a direction against the said respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 17th March, 1990 and to pay the back wages with interest.
(2.) THE facts have been dealt with in considerable detail by the order of the labour Court. As I intend confirming the order of the Labour Court as well as the order of the Industrial Court impugned in this petition, I will state the facts only briefly and during the course of considering the arguments of the learned Counsel.
(3.) THE petitioner's case in the complaint was that he was employed by respondent No. 1 respondent No. 2 i. e. M/s. Jenco Valves and respondent No. 1 are the proprietary concerns of respondent No. 3, Janardan G. Chavan. The respondents carried on business of manufacturing pneumatic, hydranlic cylindrical valves. The respondents conducted business in three different names viz. in the names of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and in the name of M/s. Umesh engineering. The services of the workmen were freely transferred from one concern to the other inter se; respondent No. 3 carried on business in three different names only as a subterfuge, without maintaining any records such as E. S. I. , Provident Fund and Leave and Wage records of the workmen. The petitioner was employed by respondent No. 1 in October, 1978 as a turner. His last drawn wages was Rs. 48. 00 per day. His initial employment was with respondent No. 1 but was frequently transferred to respon'dent No. 2. The petitioner's grievance is that when on 17th March, 1990 he reported for duties as usual at 7. 30 a. m. , respondent No. 3 without any rhyme or reason started abusing him, attempted to physically assault him, told him that his services are no longer required and drove him out of the factory premises. It is contended that the respondents have thus illegally and arbitrarily terminated the petitioner's services with effect from 17th March, 1990.