JUDGMENT : B.N. Srikrishna, J. 1. Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987 and Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1988 are directed against the order of the Industrial Court, Kolhapur, dated 31st July, 1987, made in Revision Application (ULP) No. 20 of 1986 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') By these writ petitions the claims for reinstatement of three workmen, V. G. Karve, D. K. Jadhav and D. K. Shinde were allowed and the claims of another three workmen, P. Y. Bhagat, B. J. Nimbalkar and M. T. Shinde were dismissed under the directions in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the impugned order. Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987 is filed by a registered Trade Union against the refusal of the claims for reinstatement of the three employees, while Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1988 is filed by the Employer aggrieved by the order of reinstatement of the three employees, who are Respondents 2, 3 and 4 in Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1988. The very same employees had moved applications u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming certain benefits alleged to be payable to them under the conditions of service and those applications came to be allowed by the orders made by the Labour Court, Sangli, dated 30-6-1990, in Application (IDA) No. 12 of 1985 and dated 3-8-1993 in Application (IDA) No. 120 of 1992. These orders have also been challenged by the Employer vide Writ Petition No. 5509 of 1990 and Writ petition No. 3964 of 1993. As all the matters are inter-connected and arise on the same set of facts, it would be proper and convenient that all these four writ petitions are decided by a common judgment. 2. The Writ Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1988 is a registered Co-operative Society carrying on the business of manufacturing sugar in Phaltan Taluka, District Satara. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987 is a registered union which represents some of the employees working in the service of the said Society. 2. The Writ Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1988 is a registered Co-operative Society carrying on the business of manufacturing sugar in Phaltan Taluka, District Satara. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987 is a registered union which represents some of the employees working in the service of the said Society. For the sake of convenience, I shall hereinafter refer to the Writ Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1988, Shriram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, as the Employer, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987, as the Union, and the concerned Respondents employees as the workmen. 3. The Employer is a registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and carried on the business of cultivation, development and crushing of sugar-cane and manufacture of sugar. The development of sugar-cane is carried out under the control and supervision of the Agricultural Development Section, as directed by the Cane Development Officer. By a Resolution No. CSV-1076-4A dated 24th June, 1976, the Government of Maharashtra proposed a scheme of development of sugar-cane belonging the members of Co-operative Sugar Factories. Though a copy of the said Government Resolution has not been placed on record of this Court, I am informed at the Bar that this was a Pilot Project intended to carry out research and development of sugar-cane varieties to maximise the yield of sugar. I am also informed that this project was to be funded by the State Government, to be carried out by the Employer Karkhana by employing its own workmen. Six employees, by name, V. G. Karve, D. K. Jadhav, D. K. Shinde, P. Y. Bhagat, B. J. Nimbalkar and M. T. Shinde (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Workmen) were employed by the employer on the work of the Pilot Project implemented by the Resolution of the Government of Maharashtra dated 24th June, 1976. V. G. Karve was appointed from 17-1-1976, D. K. Jadhav from 17-11-1976 and D. K. Shinde from 23-11-1976. Though the Pilot Development Project was funded by the State Government, it was to be managed by the Employer Karkhana by employing its own workmen, for which purpose appointment letters were issued by the Employer to the workmen on different dates. These three workmen were employed expressly in connection with the Pilot Project. They were given wages of Rs. 250/-, Rs. 250/- and Rs. 275/- respectively, per month. These three workmen were employed expressly in connection with the Pilot Project. They were given wages of Rs. 250/-, Rs. 250/- and Rs. 275/- respectively, per month. The Pilot Project was initially expected to function for a period of three years from 1976, but came to be extended for a further period of four years upto the crushing season of 1982-83, by another Government Resolution dated 6th February, 1979. On 27th May, 1976, the Board of Directors of the Employer unanimously passed Resolution No. 2 for implementation of the Pilot Scheme under which the Sugar Cane Harvesting and Transport Committee was given necessary authority to take all required decisions in connection with implementation of the Pilot Scheme. By another Resolution No. 8, dated 5-8-1976, passed by the Board of Directors of the Employer, it was decided to create 20 temporary posts which should be filled up by candidates from Taluka, holding Degree in Agriculture or by other Degree holders from the Taluka having knowledge of agriculture. It was decided that the persons holding Degree in Agriculture should be paid Rs. 200/- per months as wages while the other Degree holders would be given Rs. 175/- per month. The Resolution recorded that the Chairman was authorised to fill up the posts and that the said posts were only during the period for which the sugar-cane project was in operation and that the said posts were of temporary nature. 4. On 17th August, 1979, the Cane Development Officer of the Employer made a note pointing out that the area under Pilot Scheme during 1976-77 was 600 acres, during 1977-78 it was 1071 acres, during 1978-79 it was 835 acres and in the subsequent years from 1979-80 the said area had come down to 250 acres. He also pointed out that on account of lack of rainfall, no permission had been given for cultivation of sugar cane on canal and, therefore, there was tremendous fall in work of Pilot Scheme, which meant that ten employees working in the Pilot Scheme would not have sufficient work. He, therefore, recommended that the inefficient and indolent employees of the Pilot Scheme should be removed. He, therefore, recommended that the inefficient and indolent employees of the Pilot Scheme should be removed. He specifically named V. G. Karve, D. K. Shinde and D. K. Jadhav, as persons against whom several complaints had been received that they did not report for work in time, did not give reports of work in time, had not kept the reports of work in time, had not kept the records properly and were carrying on private work during the duty hours. In these circumstances, the Cane Development Officer recommended that he said three employees should be removed from service. December 7, 1994 5. Pursuant to the said note, the Board of Directors of the Employer passed a Resolution No. 23 (12) dated 28-9-1979 which approved the plan of action suggested by the Cane Development Officer in his note dated 17th August, 1979, for reducing the strength of Agricultural Supervisors by three. The Resolution decided that V. G. Karve, D. K. Jadhav and D. K. Shinde were to be removed from service. Their services were accordingly terminated by an order dated 31st October, 1979, on the ground of redundancy, upon payment of retrenchment compensation, notice pay and other dues. These three employees challenged their termination from service as an unfair labour practice by their Complaint (ULP) No. 2 of 1979 before the Labour Court, Sangli. By another Resolution No. 20(6) dated 2-2-1981 the Board of Directors of the Employer Karkhana decided that the Pilot Scheme was to be discontinued and the services of the employees of the Pilot Scheme were to be terminated V. G. Karve, D. K. Jadhav, D. K. Shinde, P. Y. Bhagat, B. J. Nimbalkar and M. T. Shinde were removed from service consequent upon the other Complaint (ULP) No. 11 of 1981 before the Labour Court at Sangli. 6. The Labour Court, Sangli, heard both complaints and by its order dated 29-7-1986 dismissed both the complaints. The Union took up the cases of these six employees and challenged the two orders of the Labour Court, Sangli, in a common Revision Application (ULP) No. 20 of 1986 before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur. By its order dated 31st July, 1987, the Industrial Court over-ruled the preliminary objection that the revision application was not maintainable. The Union took up the cases of these six employees and challenged the two orders of the Labour Court, Sangli, in a common Revision Application (ULP) No. 20 of 1986 before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur. By its order dated 31st July, 1987, the Industrial Court over-ruled the preliminary objection that the revision application was not maintainable. On merits, the Industrial Court was of the view that the Cane Development Officer's note dated 17th August, 1979 suggested removal of V. G. Karve, D. K. Jadhav and D. K. Shinde on the ground of their inefficiency and incompetency, for reasons imputing blemish to them. Their removal from service, without holding inquiry and without giving opportunity to show cause, was held not to be a bonafide retrenchment, but punitive discharge or dismissal without following the provisions of law and with undue haste. The Industrial Court also held that V. G. Karve, D. K. Jadhav and D. K. Shinde, who were seniors in service had been discharged by retaining juniors in service and, therefore, there was contravention of section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the result, the Industrial Court quashed the termination order passed by the Karkhana and directed the Employer Karkhana to reinstate the said workmen with continuity of service. 7. As far a the other three employees P. Y. Bhagat, B. J. Nimbalkar and M. T. Shinde, were concerned, the Industrial Court took the view that their services were dispensed with consequent upon the closure of the Pilot Project and, therefore, the termination of their services did not contravene the provisions of section 25G of the Industrial Disputes act as it did not amount retrenchment. The Industrial Court after consideration of the Cane Development Officer's Report dated 22-10-1985 was of the view that the latter three employees who were graduates, were also trained in the work of the Agricultural Department and had necessary knowledge, deserved to the continued in service and that it was difficult to understand why they could not be absorbed in Agricultural Development Scheme. However, the Industrial Court did not pass any order of reinstatement in their favour, but dismissed their revisions applications. 8. The Employer has challenged the reinstatement of V. G. Karve, D. K. Jadhav and D. K. Shinde by its Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1988 in which the said employees are Respondents 2 to 4 respectively. However, the Industrial Court did not pass any order of reinstatement in their favour, but dismissed their revisions applications. 8. The Employer has challenged the reinstatement of V. G. Karve, D. K. Jadhav and D. K. Shinde by its Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1988 in which the said employees are Respondents 2 to 4 respectively. The Union has challenged the rejection of the relief to P. Y. Bhagat, B. J. Nimbalkar and M. T. Shinde by its Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987 in which they are respectively Petitioners 2 to 4. 9. At this juncture it is relevant to notice certain other development leading to the filing of the other two writ petitions. It appears that as soon as Complaint (ULP) No. 2 of 1979 and Complaint (ULP) No. 11 of 1981 were filed by the six employees, ex-parte orders of injunction restraining the termination of their services had been issued by the Labour Court which continued to operate till the two complaints were dismissed by the order of the Labour Court dated 29-7-1986. Even thereafter, by virtue of an interim order made in the revision application, the six employees were continued in service. When Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987 was filed by the Union in this Court, an interim order was made by this Court on 24th August, 1987, in terms of prayer (c) by which the Employer was restrained from terminating the services of P. Y. Bhagat, B. J. Nimbalkar and M. T. Shinde. When Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1988 was moved for admission by the Employer against the reinstatement of V. G. Karve, D. K. Jadhav and D. K. Shinde, though there was a prayer for interim stay of the implementation of the order of the Industrial Court impugned in the writ petition, no such interim stay was granted. Consequently, V. G. Karve, D. K. Jadhav and D. K. Shinde were allowed to work and continued in service. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to the report made by the Cane Development Officer on 22nd October, 1985, which is at Exh. C to Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987. Consequently, V. G. Karve, D. K. Jadhav and D. K. Shinde were allowed to work and continued in service. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to the report made by the Cane Development Officer on 22nd October, 1985, which is at Exh. C to Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987. In this report, the Cane Development Officer pointed out that the proceedings taken out by the six employees were still pending before the Labour court and further suggested : "Since the suit is pending and Pilot Scheme is discontinued, no work can be provided to these employees. From last two months we have separated Sugarcane Department and the work in the said department is same as the said pilot scheme. Therefore, these six employees are asked to work in the said department. All these employees are trained and some of them are also graduates. The know all the details of the said scheme and they an work better in the said development department. If they are given proper grade/scale and proper designation, they will work better in the development department. Their designation and grade/scale may be considered on condition that they should withdraw the suit pending in Labour Court. It is recommended the, at once, after going through the details mentioned above, the decision may be taken and after taking in writing from them that they will withdraw the said matter." This report suggests that the work in the Sugar-Cane Department was identical with the work which was being done under the Pilot Scheme and that the six workmen were trained in the said work, knew all details of the work and that they could work better in the Development Department. In fact, the suggestion of the Cane Development Officer was that, if they were given proper grades or scales and proper designations, they would be motivated to work better in the Development Department. For some unfathomable reasons, this suggestion does not appear to have been accepted and implemented. In fact, the suggestion of the Cane Development Officer was that, if they were given proper grades or scales and proper designations, they would be motivated to work better in the Development Department. For some unfathomable reasons, this suggestion does not appear to have been accepted and implemented. While working as Agricultural Supervisors in the Cane Development Department, these six workmen filed applications before the Labour Court at Sangli vide Application (IDA) No. 12 of 1985 and Application (IDA) No. 120 of 1992 claiming that they would be entitled to the difference between the monetary benefits payable to the Agricultural Supervisors under the service conditions of the Employer and the fixed amounts which were paid to them, though they were designated as Agricultural Supervisors. These applications made were heard by the Labour Court and, by its order dated 30-6-1990, Application (IDA) No. 12 of 1985 was allowed. Similarly, by another order dated 3-8-1993 Application (IDA) No. 120 of 1992 was allowed. By both the orders the Employer was directed to pay the difference of the monetary benefits to the six workmen as claimed. The claim which was the subject-matter of Application (IDA) No. 12 of 1985 was confined for the period of 1980 to 1983, while the claim in Application (IDA) No. 120 of 1992 was for the period of 1980 to 1984 January. Writ Petition No. 5509 of 1990 has been filed by the Employer to challenge the order dated 30-6-1990 made by the Labour Court in Application (IDA) No. 12 of 1985, while Writ Petition No. 3964 of 1993 challenges the order dated 3-8-1993 made in Application (IDA) No. 120 of 1992. It may be mentioned here that in Writ Petition No. 5509 of 1990 at the time of issuing rule the learned Judge had refused interim relief. The Employer moved Letters Patent Appeal No. 62 of 1991 in which the Division bench P. D. Desai, C. J. and A. V. Savant J. by order dated 3rd December, 1991, granted liberty to the workmen to withdraw the amounts payable, deposited with the Tahsildar, Phaltan Taluka, District Satara, conditionally upon executing Personal Bonds to the extent of one-half of such amounts and on furnishing security in the form of Bank guarantee of a Nationalised Bank for the other half. I am informed by the learned counsel, Dr. I am informed by the learned counsel, Dr. Kulkarni, that the entries amount has been withdrawn pursuant to the order made by the Division Bench. In Writ Petition No. 3964 of 1993 at the time of issuing rule the learned single Judge on 4th October, 1993, granted stay on condition of deposit with the direction that, if the deposit was not made, the stay would stand vacated automatically. I am informed at the Bar by the learned Advocates that the deposit order was not complied with as a result of which they stay stood vacated and, further, that all amounts payable under the Labour Court's order impugned in Writ Petition No. 3964 of 1993, except small amounts, have been paid over to the concerned workmen and that even with regard to the remaining amounts, the Employer has indicated its willingness to pay them by agreed instalments. 10. The basic issue involved in Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987 is whether the Industrial Court was right in holding that the services of three of the employees V. G. Karve, D. K. Jadhav and D. K. Shinde were terminated under circumstances which amounted to unfair Labour practice within the meaning of the Act. In Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1988 the basic issue is whether the circumstances under which the service of P. Y. Bhagat, B. J. Nimbalkar and M. T. Shinde were terminated did not amount to unfair Labour practice within the meaning of the invoked provision of law. 11. Mr. Naik, learned Advocate for the Employer, vehemently contended that the letters of appointment issued to each of the workmen clearly indicated that they were employed as Agricultural Supervisors on the experimental scheme and, therefore, it could never be said that they were anything more than temporary employees. It is contended that by the contract of employment itself it was made clear that their services were coterminus with the closure of the experimental scheme and that the service purely on temporary basis were liable to be terminated at any time without notice. In the face of this clear stipulation in the office orders issued to the concerned workmen, there is no basis on which the Industrial Court could have interfered with their services which were dispensed with on the ground of retrenchment, submits Mr. Naik. In the face of this clear stipulation in the office orders issued to the concerned workmen, there is no basis on which the Industrial Court could have interfered with their services which were dispensed with on the ground of retrenchment, submits Mr. Naik. It is not clear from the record as to whether there was any obligation upon the Employer to start the experimental/Pilot Project for the development of Sugar Cane. It does not appear to be the finding of either of the Courts below. It appears that the State Government was encouraging Co-operative Sugar Karkhanas to carry on research and development in the growing of sugar-cane and it was open to the individual Karkhanas to implement such a measure or not. This was nothing but an allied activity of the Sugar Karkhana, for its own benefit, under the blessings of the State Government. To contend that such an employee had been employed on work which had no connection with the Employer Kharkhana, would be in correct and unsustainable. Further, there was no attempt made by the Karkhana to point out any provisions of Model Standing Orders/Service Regulations under which an employee could be employed for an unbroken period of five years without attaining the status of a regular employee. On the other hand, the Model Standing Orders applicable to the employees on agricultural operation in sugar industries would invest them with a status of permanency upon completion of a much shorter period of service. In any case, as far as V. G. Karve, D. K. Jadhav and D. K. Shinde are concerned, the Industrial Court has correctly concluded that the reasons for their removal from service ware the allegations that they were incompetent, that they were not coming in time for work, that they were not submitting reports of their areas in time, that they were irregular in their work and further that they were doing their private work during duty hours. If this was the foundation for termination of services, the mere camouflage of retrenchment could hardly justify the orders of termination passed against them. In my view, the Industrial Court was, therefore, right in holding that the so-called orders issued to these workmen were not legal and could not be sustained, and in directing their reinstatement. If this was the foundation for termination of services, the mere camouflage of retrenchment could hardly justify the orders of termination passed against them. In my view, the Industrial Court was, therefore, right in holding that the so-called orders issued to these workmen were not legal and could not be sustained, and in directing their reinstatement. As far as the other three employee (P. Y. Bhagat, B. J. Nimbalkar and M. T. Shinde) are concerned, both the Courts below seem to have ignored the salient fact that these employees were working on an operation which was an integral part of the Karkhana's operation and, therefore, they could not have been jettisoned on the flimsy pretence of closing of the Pilot Project. The Pilot Project was not a separate and distinct activity so as to attract S.25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act. The situation was one of retrenchment and not of closure. It is not permissible to make micro-classification of the operations in an industrial establishment to defeat the provisions of section 25F for 25M of the Industrial Disputes Act. (See in this connection the decision of the Supreme Court in Avon Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana and Others,. Admittedly, neither section 25F, nor section 25G, nor section 25M of the industrial Disputes act were complied with before their services were terminated. The termination of their services was, therefore, clearly illegal and unsustainable. I am, therefore, of the view, that taking the circumstances as a whole, the Industrial Court erred in not directing also the reinstatement of P. Y. Bhagat, B. J. Nimbalkar and M. T. Shinde. 12. In the result, Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1988 fails and Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987 would have to be allowed. 13. Turning to the other two writ petitions, the claim of the workman before the Labour Court was that they were employed as Agricultural Supervisors in the service of the Employer Karkhana and that, despite the terms of the Patil Award which prescribed some wages and other conditions of service applicable to the Agricultural Supervisors, they had been wrongfully deprived of such benefits. This claim was upheld by the Labour Court taking the view that these employees, though they were said to have been working gin the agricultural Pilot Project, were very much employees of the Karkhana and, therefore, entitled to the benefits of the Patil Award. This claim was upheld by the Labour Court taking the view that these employees, though they were said to have been working gin the agricultural Pilot Project, were very much employees of the Karkhana and, therefore, entitled to the benefits of the Patil Award. Mr. Naik contends that these employees are hardly doing any work after the Pilot Project was closed and that they are simply moving about. A careful perusal of the report dated 2-10-1985 made by the Cane Development Officer, which is on record at page 44 in Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987, belies this contention. In none of these proceedings was such a grievance raised before any Court, including this Court. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention that the concerned workmen are not doing any work. That they have sufficient knowledge and experience of work and that they are capable of carrying out of the work in the Development Department is amply seen from the said report of the Cane Development Officer. 14. In these circumstances, I am of the view that there is no merit in Writ Petition No. 5509 of 1990 and Writ Petition No. 3964 of 1993 filed by the Employer and they also deserve to be dismissed. 15. It appears to me that from the year 1979 the employees concerned have been working in the employment of the Employer continuously and, despite the long litigation that ensued, the employees have worked better, got reliefs, applicable grades and earned increments therein. In these circumstances, it would be unjust to throw them out from the work they were carrying on merely because it suits the Employer to urge today that the matter is "a matter of principles" as Mr. Naik argued. In my assessment, the ends of justice would be better served by letting sleeping dogs lie. Despite strenuously contending that these six workmen were unqualified for the job as the job of Agricultural Supervisor requires a minimum qualification of Graduation in agricultural discipline, Mr. Naik has not been able to bring to my notice and requirement of law or contract of service that it is so. In these circumstances, I am also reluctant to interfere with the status quo and create fresh disputes. 16. In the result, Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987 is allowed. Naik has not been able to bring to my notice and requirement of law or contract of service that it is so. In these circumstances, I am also reluctant to interfere with the status quo and create fresh disputes. 16. In the result, Writ Petition No. 3996 of 1987 is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer (a) and (b), with no order as to costs. 17. Writ Petition No. 1208 of 1988, Writ Petition No. 5509 of 1990 and Writ Petition No. 3964 of 1993 are hereby dismissed. Rules issued in these writ petitions are discharged. Personal Bonds and Bank Guarantees given by the concerned employees stand cancelled. No order as to costs. 18. Certified copy expedited.