JUDGMENT 1. These petitions challenge the judgment and order dated 29th November, 2011, delivered by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Akola, in Complaint (ULP) No. 203/1996. The petitioner in W.P. No. 2146/2012 was respondent No. 3 in the lower Court. Respondent No. 4 was the complainant. Let me call the parties by their original designation in the lower Court. The complainant stated as under. 2. Integrated Child Development Scheme of the State of Maharashtra is in implementation all over the State since long time. Earlier to 1995, there were Balwadis, where the Balwadi Sevikas were appointed on honorarium basis. On 24th October, 1994, the Government of Maharashtra made changes in the scheme by issuing Resolution dated 24th October, 1994. The State of Maharashtra decided to establish Aanganwadi in place of Balwadi. They also resolved to appoint Aganwadi Sevikas and Madatnis in all the Aanganwadi centers. It was further resolved that Balwadi Sevika who had completed two years service would be appointed as Aanganwadi Sevika. 3. In view of this policy decision, the Government of Maharashtra issued an advertisement for filling up 110 posts of Aanganwadi Sevika and Madatnis in all over Maharashtra. The complainant who was already working as Balwadi Sevika for more than 2 years prior to 24th October, 1994, made an application for appointment as Aanganwadi Sevika. The complainant is resident of village Kajaleshwar, Tq. Karanja Lad, Distt. Washim. At this village, there was already a Balwadi established. The complainant, therefore, expected her appointment as Aanganwadi Sevika in view of the policy decision taken by the State of Maharashtra. Along with her application, she annexed her experience certificate etc. 4. To the complainant's misfortune, respondent No. 3, who is also resident of the same village, moved her application for appointment as Aanganwadi Sevika. As per the Government Resolution, respondent No. 1 - Project Officer and respondent No. 2 - Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Akola, constituted a committee for selection. After holding interviews, they selected respondent No. 3 to be appointed as - Aanganwadi Sevika and selected the complainant as Aanganwadi Madatnis. This was challenged before the Industrial Court by filing Unfair Labour Practice Complaint No. 482/1996 (New No. 203/1996). 5. The learned Judge held on facts that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were guilty of unfair labour practice because they had ignored the direction in the resolution and had shown undue favour to respondent No. 3. This was challenged before the Industrial Court by filing Unfair Labour Practice Complaint No. 482/1996 (New No. 203/1996). 5. The learned Judge held on facts that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were guilty of unfair labour practice because they had ignored the direction in the resolution and had shown undue favour to respondent No. 3. In addition to this, without there being any prayer to that effect, the learned Member of the Industrial Court declared the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Aanganwadi Sevika as illegal. 6. In view of this, respondent No. 3 filed this petition. She pointed out that although the learned Member could have declared the conduct of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as unfair to the complainant, the learned Member had no jurisdiction or authority to declare her appointment as illegal. As pointed out above, though respondent No. 3 was made party to the petition, no relief was claimed against her. She was made party probably because the complainant thought that since there is one post of Aanganwadi Sevika at this particular Aanganwadi and since the same is occupied by respondent No. 3, she is the necessary party. 7. The questions are: (i) Whether the complaint was maintainable as unfair labour practice as defined by Maharashtra Recognized Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (in short M.R.T.U and P.U.L.P. Act)? (ii) Whether respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could be held guilty of unfair labour practice? (iii) Whether respondent No. 3 could have been affected by any order passed in a litigation of this nature? 7. In order to enlighten the Court about the maintainability of the complaint, the complainant placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Vidya Vishnu Vanare v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2011 (2) Mh.L.J. 221 . The Division Bench of this Court examined as to whether a Aanganwadi Sevika or Madatnis is a workman within the meaning of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and whether such Sevika could approach the Labour Court under the M.R.T.U and P.U.L.P. Act, for the purpose of implementation of the G.R. issued by the Government of Maharashtra. It is not in dispute that the scheme is not implemented as per the provisions of any statute. It appears that this is an activity in the nature of providing service and welfare to unprivileged class of society. It is not in dispute that the scheme is not implemented as per the provisions of any statute. It appears that this is an activity in the nature of providing service and welfare to unprivileged class of society. The Division Bench held that Integrated Child Development Scheme is a systematic activity of the Government, in which there is co-operation between employer and employee and so the activity is an industry. Nonetheless, the Division Bench held that the activity and functioning of the State under the scheme would not fall within the meaning of the term ‘sovereign function’ of the State. In view of this, the Division Bench thought it fit to hold that if a Aanganwadi Sevika has any grievance about the unfair labour practice, she should be permitted to approach the Labour Court/Industrial Court under the provisions of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. 8. In view of this, there is no difficulty in holding that the complaint was maintainable under the provisions of M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act. The complainant was already in employment of the State of Maharashtra as Balwadi Sevika prior to 1994 and prior to her application for the post of Aanganwadi Sevika. The Government Resolution clearly makes a rule that those working as Balwadi Sevika for more than two years would be appointed as Aanganwadi Sevika. In view of this rule, there was in fact no reason why a separate application from the complainant for appointment as Angawadi Sevika was needed. As per the provisions of G.R., she ought to have been appointed directly as Aanganwadi Sevika. In view of this, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ought not to have expected her to make an application, appear for an interview, enter the competition with other candidates and then get selected. The position of the complainant was above all this and she was entitled to appointment without any formality. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were given task of appointing Aanganwadi Sevika in their Districts, did not realize the purport of the Government Resolution, which is explained above. Assuming that the State of Maharashtra published an advertisement for inviting applications for the posts like Aanganwadi Sevika and Angawadi Madatnis, as far as the complainant's position was concerned, her appointment as Aanganwadi Sevika was certain and assuming she made an application, it was part of procedure and formality. Assuming that the State of Maharashtra published an advertisement for inviting applications for the posts like Aanganwadi Sevika and Angawadi Madatnis, as far as the complainant's position was concerned, her appointment as Aanganwadi Sevika was certain and assuming she made an application, it was part of procedure and formality. Her appointment as Aanganwadi Sevika was merely a formality and ought to have been done without further scrutiny. If this was not done by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the learned Member of the Industrial Court rightly held that the same amounted to unfair labour practice as defined under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act which reads as under: Schedule IV - General Unfair Labour Practices on the part of Employers— (5) To show favouritism or partiality to one set of workers, regardless of merits. 9. Respondent No. 3, therefore, cannot have any quarrel with this. The last question is whether the impugned order could have affected adversely the appointment of respondent No. 3. It was no ones case before the learned Member of the Industrial Court that in case the complainant succeeds, she would replace respondent No. 3. The posts of Aanganwadi Sevika and Angawadi Madatnis are not statutory posts. Therefore, there was no question of vacancy etc. In other words, it cannot be said that appointment of a Aanganwadi Sevika for Angawadi Center of this particular village would amount to filling up of a vacancy. It is not as if there is only one vacancy and it can be filled up with appointment of one person only. As stated above, the post of Aanganwadi Sevika is not a civil post. It is merely a provision made in the scheme for providing help to villagers for tending and educating their children. 10. I am told by the learned AGP that the scheme provides one Aanganwadi Sevika and Aanganwadi Madatnis per Aanganwadi and therefore, the implementation of scheme would be adversely affected if more than two Aanganwadi Sevikas are posted at one Aanganwadi. I am afraid, this is a misplaced apprehension. While implementing a scheme, there cannot be any hard and fast rule that there would be only one Aanganwadi Sevika etc. As an exception, there could be two Aanganwadi Sevikas engaged at one Aanganwadi center. At least, in this case, this situation is inevitable. I am afraid, this is a misplaced apprehension. While implementing a scheme, there cannot be any hard and fast rule that there would be only one Aanganwadi Sevika etc. As an exception, there could be two Aanganwadi Sevikas engaged at one Aanganwadi center. At least, in this case, this situation is inevitable. In this Aanganwadi, there would be two Aanganwadi Sevikas, the complainant as well as respondent No. 3. I am not concerned as to whether there is any Aanganwadi Madatnis appointed for this Aanganwadi. The State of Maharashtra would be bound to accept the inevitable situation created by the unfair labour practice practiced by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Fortunately, the financial implication of the order would be quite minor. It would make the Zilla Parishad, Washim, to pay additional honorarium to on Aanganwadi Sevika. 11. Of course, I am not suggesting that the State of Maharashtra should continue implementation of the scheme even though it is burdensome to them. Secondly, I am not suggesting that the State of Maharashtra as well as the Zilla Parishad, Washim cannot make alternate arrangement for accommodating respondent No. 3 elsewhere. But these consequences are beyond the scope of the litigation. Therefore, Writ Petition No. 2146/2012 stands partly allowed. The later part of the impugned order dated 29-11-2011 of the Member, Industrial Court, Akola, is set aside. The appointment of respondent No. 3 (petitioner herein) shall remain unaffected, though the complainant is provided necessary relief. In view of the above observations, second Writ Petition No. 208/2013 stands disposed of. No orders as to costs. Order accordingly.