JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.:—Invoking the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, both the petitioners-employees have sought the relief as under : "It is therefore, prayed that this Honble Court be pleased to quash by appropriate writ, order or direction the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 8-4-1991 and allow the petitioners application for difference in wages vide Annexure A with exemplary costs besides granting any other relief as this Honble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case." 2. In both these petitions common questions are involved, and therefore, can be disposed of by this common judgment. Relevant facts are as under : Shikshak Sahakari Mudranalaya is a printing press in which daily newspaper "Dainik Indrapuri Samachar" is being printed and published. In consequence of the application of Palekar Award to the newspaper industry, the respondent No. 1, i.e. proprietor of the said press and newspaper, artificially separated the office of the newspaper, the printing press and formed a third unit called Madhu Art. He obtained separate registration for the unit showing himself as the owner of the Mudranalaya, his brother as owner of the newspaper and nephew Diwakar as the owner of Madhu Art. Thus, artificially dividing the Mudranalaya into three separate units and dividing the employees of the press between the press and Madhu Art, an attempt was made to avoid the liability of payment of difference in wages in consequence of the Palekar Award. One Uttam Patankar whose services were transferred to the third unit, Madhu Art filed a complaint under section 28 of the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act vide Complaint ULP No. 209/79 challenging the termination of his services by Shri Diwakar Bhele, who was shown as the proprietor of the third unit of Madhu Art. In that case all the three proprietors, i.e. Prabhakar, Uttam and Diwakar Bhele were joined as respondents. In that case the Labour Court recorded the finding that separate establishments as shown were in fact one which is based on the report of Inspector of Factory, Class-I, Akola who visited the Mudranalaya on 20-5-1978 after the date of accepted separation and found that all the employees were working at one place in the premises of the Mudranalaya and the name of the employer was Shri Prabhakar Mohanji Bhele. The real employer, i.e. Shikshak Sahakari Mudranalaya and the Dainik Samachar were directed to reinstate the employee with full back wages. The Industrial Court in revision confirmed this finding in its judgment dated 23-3-1984 and the two judgments of the courts below were challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1365/1984 and the said writ petition was dismissed confirming the finding recorded by both the courts below. 3. Seven employees filed application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming difference in wages to which they were entitled as per the Palekar Award for the period from October, 1982 to December, 1985. The proprietor of the three units were not party to this application. Common evidence was recorded in all those applications. Insofar as the five employees are concerned, the Labour Court granted the claim of the employees while in the case of claimant and one another workman who was on the muster roll of Madhu Arts, their applications were rejected. 4. The petitioner was working with Mudranalaya as Hand Compositor wherein Dainik Indrapuri Samachar used to published, and therefore, he is entitled to receive difference in wages in accordance with the Palekar award. Therefore, he had filed an application before the Labour Court under section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act on 1-4-1986, which was dismissed by the Labour Court by order dated 8-4-1991. This order is challenged in this petition. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court cannot be sustained in law because in identical matter, i.e. ULP Case No. 209/1979 which came to be allowed and the complainant was directed reinstatement of the employee therein with continuity of service with further direction to pay full payment from the date of termination till reinstatement, holding the termination illegal. The respondent No. 1 is owner of the newspaper establishment also and he has separated the establishment of Shikshak Sahakari Mudranalaya since 1980 from the office of newspaper initially in order to avoid the liability to pay difference of wages in consequence of the Palekar Award. The decision of the Labour Court was challenged before the Industrial Court and consequently the Industrial Court by exercising its revisional powers under section 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, confirmed the finding of the Labour Court and dismissed the revision. The decision of the Labour Court was challenged before the Industrial Court and consequently the Industrial Court by exercising its revisional powers under section 44 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, confirmed the finding of the Labour Court and dismissed the revision. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that both the petitioners being employees of one and the same establishment, are entitled to receive the difference in wages in consequence of the Palekar Award. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is perfectly just, legal and correct because the Labour Court has concluded the point by observing that it cannot examine point of functional integrity between the three units because Madhu Art and Dainik Indrapuri Samachar were not the party to the proceeding and held that all the three establishments being separate and since the petitioners being the employees on the units of Madhu Art, the respondent No. 1 who is proprietor of Shikshak Sahakari Mudranalaya, cannot be held liable to pay the difference of wages. The learned Counsel further contended that the proprietor of Madhu Art is a necessary party and consequently no interference into the impugned order is warranted. 7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that both the petitioners were the employees on the establishment of Shikshak Sahakari Mudranalaya, Amravati for quite some time and thereafter the respondent No. 1 attempted to make out the case that said establishment was divided in to three units w.e.f. 1-5-1978 i.e. (i) Shikshak Sahakari Mudranalaya, (ii) Dainik Indrapuri Samachar, and (iii) Madhu Art. The contention of respondent No. 1 that the petitioners were working on the establishment of Madhu Art are not entitled to claim the difference of wages in consequence of Palekar Award from him, who is the owner of Shikshak Sahakari Mudranalaya is devoid of any merit and it appears that the original establishment has been divided into three units only to avoid the payment of difference of wages in consequence of Palekar award. 8. 8. It is relevant to note that the respondent No. 1 and Uttam Mohanaji Bhele are real brothers and had filed Writ Petition No. 1355/1984 against employer Uttam Shamrao Patankar and others challenging the order dated 23-11-1982 passed by the First Labour Court, Akola and confirmed by the Industrial Court, Amravati in revision. The said writ petition came to be decided on 2-7-1987 wherein the identical questions were considered and this Court specifically observed in para 3 of the judgment as under : "......... This aspect has been considered by the Labour Court at great length in paras 11 onwards. The Labour Court has taken into consideration the factor of relationship between the parties. The petitioners are brothers and respondent No. 2 is their nephew. According to the Labour Court, there was collusion between the petitioners and respondent No. 2 to defeat the claim of the respondent No. 1, who was agitating for his wages and other rights. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the evidence, the Labour Court recorded a finding that M/s. Madhu Arts is not a separate establishment and all the three establishments are one and the same. It has also taken into consideration the fact that respondent No. 1 who contesting throughout that respondent No. 2 was not his employer, and therefore, he has no right to serve any notice. The stand of respondent No. 1 has been consistent throughout. It has also come on record that the respondent No. 1 had complained to the Factory Inspector that his wages were not being paid and he had actually initiated proceedings for difference of wages. All the findings recorded by the Labour Court have been confirmed by the Industrial Court. There are all pure questions of facts and I see no reason to interfere with the same.........." 9. This Court has clearly confirmed the findings of the Labour Court that there was collusion between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 to defeat the claim of respondent No. 1 who was agitating for his wages and other rights and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the evidence, the Labour Court recorded finding that M/s. Madhu Arts is not a separate establishment and all the three establishments are one and the same. The reasonable logical and irresistible inference can be drawn from all these facts that the respondent No. 1 has separated the original establishment into three separate units only to avoid the payment of wages and the difference of wages in accordance with the Palekar Award, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the both courts cannot be sustained in law. 10. The petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside and the petitioners are held to be entitled to receive the difference of wages vide Annexure A from the respondent No. 1 with costs. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Petition succeeds. -----