JUDGMENT Manish Pitale, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged judgment and order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra (Akola Bench), whereby a complaint filed by them under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short " MRTU & PULP Act), was dismissed. 3. The petitioners had filed the aforesaid complaint under Section 28 of the MRTU & PULP Act, claiming that the respondents had committed unfair labour practice under Items 5,6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the said Act. It was claimed by the petitioners that they had joined on various dates from 1987 onwards with the respondent no.3 Zilla Parishad as daily wage employees and they were continuously working as such for long periods of time without being given the benefit of the regularisation. The complaint was filed on 21.10.2003 seeking a specific direction against the respondent no.3 to treat them as permanent employees and to give all the monetary benefits with retrospective effect. In he said complaint, one of the complainants who is the petitioner in these writ petitions, had sworn and submitted an affidavit before the Industrial Court, stating that he had joined on 09.11.1987 in the Water Supply Scheme implemented by respondent no.3 Zilla Parishad and that he was continuously working on daily wages. It was stated in the said affidavit that he was filing the claim affidavit on behalf of other complainants (petitioners) also. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit, details of dates of joining, the nature of posts held by the petitioners, details of their salaries and other details were stated. It was specifically claimed that Kalelkar Award was applicable to all the complainants and that, therefore, they were entitled to relief as claimed in the complaint. Thereafter, a pursis dated 30.09.2004 was filed before the Industrial Court, which was signed by all the complainants stating that they were adopting the claim affidavit placed on record by the aforesaid complainant. 4. By judgment and order dated 20.09.2012, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint of the petitioners and declared that the respondent no.1 had engaged in unfair labour practice. 4. By judgment and order dated 20.09.2012, the Industrial Court allowed the complaint of the petitioners and declared that the respondent no.1 had engaged in unfair labour practice. On this basis, the respondents were directed to make all complainants, except one Rambhau Dindokar, permanent in services with effect of the date of the complaint and to give admissible benefits and continuity of service. It was recorded in the said judgment and order by the Industrial Court that the respondents had failed to cross-examine the said witness, who had filed the claim affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of the other complainants. It was also recorded that except for the said Rambhau Dindokar, even in the written statement, the respondents had not challenged the claim of the complainants that they had been working on daily wages continuously from various dates from the year 1987 onwards. It was recorded that the respondents had denied continuity of service of only the said Rambhau Dindokar. On this basis, the complaint was allowed. 5. Aggrieved by the same, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed Writ Petition No. 2332/2013 before this Court. By judgment and order dated 11.02.2014, this Court partly allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the Industrial Court. This Court found that the Industrial Court had failed to consider the question of applicability of Kalelkar Award to the case of the complainants. 6. Upon remand, the Industrial Court has passed the impugned judgment and order dated 09.09.2015 and dismissed the complaint. The said judgment and order is challenged in the present writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Industrial Court has committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainants (petitioners herein) have failed to produce evidence about their continuous service for a period of five years and on this basis the Industrial Court has held that the complainants (petitioners) were not entitled to the benefits of Kalelkar Award. It is submitted that the said finding is wholly erroneous because in the first round itself, on appreciation of evidence on record, the Industrial Court had given a categorical finding of fact that the petitioners had indeed worked continuously for a period of more than five years. It is submitted that the said finding is wholly erroneous because in the first round itself, on appreciation of evidence on record, the Industrial Court had given a categorical finding of fact that the petitioners had indeed worked continuously for a period of more than five years. The only enquiry that the Industrial Court was required to undertake, as per the order of remand passed by this Court was, as to whether Kalelkar Award was applicable to the petitioners. It was further submitted that now the controversy was no more res integra because the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Zilla Panshad, Aurangabad vs. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 2 Mh.L.J. 837 had clearly held that as per Government Resolution dated 10.07.1974, the Kalelkar Award was applicable to daily wagers. Reliance was also placed on order dated 03.02.2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5324 of 2009 (Akhil Marathwada Zilla Parishad Kamgar Union through its President. vs. State of Maharashtra and ors) wherein benefits of the said G.R. dated 10.07.2014, were granted to employees similarly situated like the petitioners herein. On this basis, it was submitted that the writ petitions deserved to be allowed. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Industrial Court was justified in entering into the enquiry as to whether the petitioners had proved continuous service of more than five years. On facts, the Industrial Court found that there was lack of material and positive evidence led by the petitioners to come to a conclusion that they had indeed completed 5 years of continuous service. It was submitted that once it was found that the petitioners had failed to prove the aforesaid fact, even under the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the petitioners, no relief could be granted to them and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court was justified. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. It was submitted that once it was found that the petitioners had failed to prove the aforesaid fact, even under the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the petitioners, no relief could be granted to them and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court was justified. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. A perusal of the judgment and order dated 20.09.2012 passed by the Industrial Court in the first round between the parties shows that there was detailed consideration of the evidence and material on record placed by both the parties on the crucial aspect as to whether the petitioners had at all proved that they had worked as daily wagers with the respondent no.3 for a continuous period of five years or more. A perusal of the material on record shows that an affidavit of one of the complainants was on record, wherein detailed statements were made about the dates of joining and the nature of employment of all the complainants before the Industrial Court, who were working with the respondent no.3. The said material shows that the complainants had been working continuously for more than five years with respondent no.3. It was recorded by the Industrial Court that there was no cross-examination of the said witness, although he had deposed on his own behalf and for all other complainants. It was found that the respondent no.3 had made specific statement in the written statement only with regard to one complainant i.e. Rambhau Dindokar, stating that the said person had not worked continuously with the Zilla Parishad. There was no specific denial at all by the respondent no.3 in respect of all other complainants i.e. petitioners before this Court. On this basis, the Industrial Court in its judgment and order dated 20.09.2012 gave finding of fact as follows:- "11. In view of the evidence in the present case, the position regarding continuous service of more than 240 days in a year is in fact not at all disputed by the respondents. Respondents submitted that complainants worked on daily wages and Government has snot created any post and therefore they can not be made permanent. In view of the evidence in the present case, the position regarding continuous service of more than 240 days in a year is in fact not at all disputed by the respondents. Respondents submitted that complainants worked on daily wages and Government has snot created any post and therefore they can not be made permanent. However, the factual position of the doing work for more than five years prior to filing of the complaint is not at all disputed and therefore it is clear that complainants have put in the service of the more than 240 days in every year, on the contrary, they worked continuously for more than five years except one complainant who is already terminated." 10. Having challenged the said judgment and order of the Industrial Court by filing writ petition, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 claimed that the Industrial Court had erred in allowing the complaint of the petitioners. While considering the said writ petition and disposing of the same by judgment and order dated 11.02.2014, this Court held as follows:- "4. It is not the finding recorded by the Industrial Court that the provisions of Kalelkar Award are applicable to the establishment of the petitioner. Merely because complainants have worked continuously for 240 days every years and continuously for a period of five years that by itself could not make them entitle to get regularization in service either under Item 6 or 9 of the Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act and the condition precedent for grant of regularization under Item 6 of Schedule IV is the existence of sanctioned posts. There is nothing brought on record by the complainants by way of evidence to show that the posts on which they are working were sanctioned. The complainants were working on daily wages. Though it is urged that work is of continuous in nature and the finding is recorded by the Industrial Court that the work available is of perennial in nature, that will not permit the Court to direct creation of posts and, grant regularization. The complainants were working on daily wages. Though it is urged that work is of continuous in nature and the finding is recorded by the Industrial Court that the work available is of perennial in nature, that will not permit the Court to direct creation of posts and, grant regularization. The Division Bench of this Court has taken a view in the case of State of Maharashtra & Anr vs. pandurang Sitaram Jadhav reported in, (2008) 5 ALL MR 497 holding that merely because there is evidence on record indicating that work of perennial in nature is available that by itself would not make the complainants entitle for the benefits under Item 6 of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act. In view of this, the Industrial Court has committed an error in granting benefit of permanency under Item 6 of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act to the complainants. The judgment and order impugned in this petition cannot, therefore, be sustained. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 129/2003 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Complaint (U.L.P.) No. 129/2003 is dismissed. The Industrial Court has failed to consider the question of applicability of Kalelkar Award to the case of the complainants. In view of this the matter will have to be sent to the Industrial Court to consider the question of applicability of Kalelkar Award and then to proceed further to decide the matter on its own merit, in accordance with law. The matter is remitted back to the Industrial Court to decide it afresh in accordance with law." 11. The nature of the order of remand passed by this Court clearly shows that the Industrial Court was supposed to examine the question as to whether the Kalelkar Award was at all applicable to the petitioners merely because they had worked continuously for a period of five years or more on daily wages with respondent no.3. 12. The nature of the order of remand clearly shows that the Industrial Court was not expected to again enter into the question as to whether the petitioners had been able to prove continuous service on daily wages for more than five years with respondent no.3. Yet the Industrial Court entered into such an enquiry and gave a finding against the petitioners. Yet the Industrial Court entered into such an enquiry and gave a finding against the petitioners. Even while doing so, it was not as if any fresh evidence had come on record to show that the finding of fact earlier given by the Industrial Court could be dislodged. 13. In this situation, the Industrial Court clearly erred in not concentrating on the question as to whether Kalelkar award was applicable to the petitioners and going into the question as to whether the petitioners had worked for a period of five years or more as daily wagers with respondent no.3. The said question had been answered on facts in favour of the petitioners and while remanding the matter this Court had not disturbed the same in any manner. 14. In fact, this Court clearly recorded in paragraph four of its judgment that the Industrial Court was supposed to examine as to whether Kalelkar Award was applicable to the petitioners merely because they had worked continuously for a period of five years with the respondent no.3. Therefore, the Industrial Court erred in denying relief to the petitioners on that ground. 15. As regards whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of Kalelkar award, the said question is no more res integra because in the case of Zilla Panshad, Aurangabad vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), the learned Single of this Court has deliberated on the said question in respect of employees of Zilla Parishad itself and it has been found in the said judgment in paragraph 11 as follows:- "11. The terms set out in the Kalelkar Award and the Bhole Commission recommendations have been long standing and have been implemented for the past about more four decades. The Government Resolution dated 10.07.1974 in fact prompts the Kalelkar settlement and makes it mandatory to all such Establishments which are covered by the settlement that the daily wagers, who have been working for 5 years continuously are brought on CRTE and after completion of 5 years on CRTE, they are required to be regularized. There has been no change in this policy and the law applicable." 16. There has been no change in this policy and the law applicable." 16. This Court has placed reliance on G.R. dated 10.07.1974 while holding in favour of the employees of the Zilla Parishad and perusal of the said G.R. shows that it is applicable to persons engaged on daily wages who have put in total service of five years or more. The said position has been reiterated by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akhil Marathwada Zilla Parishad Kamgar Union vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), wherein the employees have been held to be entitled to the relief of Kalelkar Award by relying upon G.R. dated 10.07.1974. 17. In the light of the above, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly the writ petitions are allowed, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Industrial Court is quashed and set aside and it is held that the petitioners having completed services of five years or more as daily wagers with the respondent no.3 are entitled to benefit of the Kalelkar Award and all consequential benefits that would flow from grant of such relief. It is obvious that the benefits of the said Kalelkar Award would be granted to the petitioner from their respective dates of having completed five years of continuous service with the respondent no.3. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.