JUDGMENT 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. The challenge in all these petitions is to the common judgment and order dated 18.4.2012 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaints (ULP) Nos.52, 53, 66 to 72, 77, 78, and 83 to 90 of 2010. The Industrial Court has allowed the complaints and granted the declaration that the petitioner-employer is engaged in an unfair labour practice falling under Item 5 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“MRTU & PULP Act”). The consequential declaration is also granted that and connected matters.odt the complainants are entitled to be regularized on their posts of Staff Nurses from the date on which they were initially appointed. However, the claim of the complainants under Items 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act has been rejected. 3. All the complainants are holding the posts of Staff Nurses and their appointments are as bonded candidates. The Industrial Court has recorded the finding that several candidates holding the posts of Staff Nurses and appointed as bonded candidates were subsequently regularized in service, but the complainants, who are similarly situated, have been denied the same treatment. The Industrial Court has referred to several documents, including those at Exhibits 46 and 48, regularizing two Staff Nurses, viz. Ku. Parveen Sheikh and Ku. Archana Dongare, with effect from the dates of their joining. The finding is recorded that these orders of regularization nowhere show that the candidates were regularized after selection procedure, but on the contrary the orders clearly show that the aforesaid two candidates have completed the service period of two years satisfactorily, and in view of the decision taken by the Divisional Selection Committee, their services have been regularized from the dates of their joining. It has been held that these documents falsify the case of the petitioner-employer that the candidates were regularized after the selection process. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, I have gone through the orders of appointments of the complainants on the posts of Staff Nurses as bonded candidates and subsequent orders of their continuation in service. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, I have gone through the orders of appointments of the complainants on the posts of Staff Nurses as bonded candidates and subsequent orders of their continuation in service. I have also gone through the orders of regularization of the appointments of bonded candidates as Staff Nurses, including those at Exhibits 46 and 48 issued in favour of Ku. Parveen Sheikh and Ku. Archana Dongare. 5. No doubt, it is true that the complainants and all other appointees, who have been regularized in service, were initially appointed as bonded candidates on the posts of Staff Nurses. The advertisements were issued inviting applications for the said posts; in response to which, the complainants and several other candidates appeared for the interview before the Divisional Selection Committee. The candidates selected were given regular orders of appointments as Staff Nurses, and those who were not selected, or who did not appear before the Divisional Selection Committee were given the orders of appointments on the said posts purely on temporary basis, subject to the appointments of regular candidates in their posts through the said Committee. 6. Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, which has been invoked by the Industrial Court to grant regularization to the complainants in service relates to showing favouritism and partiality to one set of workers, regardless of merits. There are recruitment rules framed for nursing personnel in the Maharashtra Nursing Service Class-III, which prescribes the qualifications and eligibility criteria for making the appointments to the said posts. The candidates selected are required to be appointed on probation for a period of two years. The regular appointments to these posts are required to be made upon selection of the candidates by the Divisional Selection Committee constituted for that purpose after the advertisements are issued and the applications are invited. 7. Some of the complainants applied pursuant to the advertisement and appeared for interview before the Divisional Selection Committee. Some of the complainants did not appear before the said Committee for interview. The candidates, who were selected by the Divisional Selection Committee, were appointed on regular basis on the posts of Staff Nurses. 7. Some of the complainants applied pursuant to the advertisement and appeared for interview before the Divisional Selection Committee. Some of the complainants did not appear before the said Committee for interview. The candidates, who were selected by the Divisional Selection Committee, were appointed on regular basis on the posts of Staff Nurses. Those, who were not selected by the Divisional Selection Committee, or who did not appear before the said Committee, were given the orders of appointments on purely temporary basis as bonded candidates subject to selections and appointments in their posts on regular basis through the said Committee. The Industrial Court has, therefore, committed an error in holding that the complainants were similarly situated with those, who were appointed after their selection by the Divisional Selection Committee. The Divisional Selection Committee found merits in the candidates selected, whereas the complainants were not found fit for selection. Hence, Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act showing favouritism and partiality to one set of workers, regardless of merits did not attract in the present case. The Industrial Court has committed an error in directing regularization of the complainants on the basis of Item 5 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court cannot, therefore, be sustained and the claim of the complainants will have to be dismissed. 8. In view of above, all the petitions are allowed. The common judgment and order dated 18.4.2012 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaints (ULP) Nos.52, 53, 66 to 72, 77, 78, and 83 to 90 of 2010, is hereby quashed and set aside. The said complaints stand dismissed. 9. At this stage, the learned counsels appearing for the complainants submit that the judgment delivered by this Court be kept in abeyance for a period of two months so as to enable the petitioner-employer to take further appropriate steps in the matter. The prayer is opposed. I do not find any reason to keep the judgment in abeyance. The complainants are already in service, and if their services are dispensed with, they may adopt such other course as is available to them in law. 10. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.