MUKHYADHIKARI Vs. VISHAL VIJAY AMRUTRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Shri Kulkarni, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri N.B. Jadhav, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents in 23 writ petitions, as mentioned above, at length.

(2.) IN view of the order that I propose to pass, I am not formally issuing notices to the respondents. I have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Jadhav on behalf of the respondents workers.

(3.) THE respondents had preferred several complaints before the Industrial Court at Latur under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act of 1971 (In short, State Act). In all the complaints, the respondents had invoked Item Nos. 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the State Act. All of them had claimed permanency, benefits incidental and consequential thereto and had also sought a declaration of unfair labour practices (ULP) against the petitioner.