1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7698 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr.B.R.Sontakke Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, advocate for Rspondent Nos.1 to 14 and 16 to 18. Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for State. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.10.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The present Respondents had filed complaint (ULP) No. 2/2009, before the Industrial Court, Latur, challenging the order dated 2.12.2004 passed by the present Respondent No.20 and order dated 8.9.2005 passed by the present petitioner. Vide the said order the conditions were imposed on the petitioner i.e. giving undertaking that they would not approach any Court, they would be regularised since 2000 etc.. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2 3. Mr.Sontakke Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the Respondents/original complainants had accepted the said orders and now it is not open for them to challenge the same. Once the orders were accepted, the Respondents/complainants can not say that they would be entitled for the benefits of the said order and would not be liable for the conditions imposed. According to the learned counsel, this aspect has not been considered. The orders were issued considering the special feature and the complainants were allowed to join the services as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order. As the complainants were not appointed by following proper procedure, the said conditions were imposed. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgment and orders issued by the present petitioner. 5. The High Court in W.P.No.7472/2005, had quashed and set aside the condition No.1 of the said order dated 2.12.2004 and as far as other conditions are concerned, the complainants were given liberty to raise dispute before appropriate forum. The Industrial Court on appreciation of evidence had come to the conclusion that the complainants were working on daily wages for many years and it was obligatory to regularise them in view of clause 4(c) of the Model Standing Order. The entry in service of the complainants was proper. The complainants were regularised by original 3 Respondent No.2 after following proper procedure and after due Resolution was passed by the present petitioner. When all this was done, no such conditions were imposed. As such it was erroneous on the part of the petitioner to impose such conditions subsequently. The service conditions were sought to be changed by the orders issued by the petitioner which is not permissible. 6. Mr.Sontakke Patil, learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not committed any unfair labour practice but has only obeyed the order issued by the original Respondent No.1. Be that as it may, it is the complainants who would be affected by the acts. 7. The Industrial Court has properly considered the matter. There is no error committed by the Industrial Court while passing the order. As such the Writ Petition being sans merit, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.12.10.2011. asp/office/wp7698.11 4