1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5841 OF 2009 Maniar Textiles & ors. ... Petitioners v/s Dinesh Sahdev Satam ... Respondent Mr.Rahul Singh for the petitioners. Mr.Amol Mhatre for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 6TH JULY, 2010 P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2. The petitioners have filed the present petition contending that the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (in short, “the MRTU & PULP Act”) could not have been invoked by respondent since there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the respondent. It is submitted that when the employer 2 raises such an objection, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to decide whether there is a relationship of employer and employee is ousted. An industrial dispute has to be raised. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Cipla Ltd. v/s Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & ors., reported in 2001 I C.L.R. 754. The learned Advocate for the respondent submits that in the present case there can be no dispute regarding the employer and employee relationship as the Labour Court has already decided this issue. The Industrial Court has confirmed the findings of the Labour Court in the revision application filed by the petitioners under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act. Admittedly, the order of the Industrial Court was not challenged by the petitioners any further. Therefore, the findings of the Labour Court as confirmed by the Industrial Court that there is a relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and the respondent cannot be reopened now in this Petition. 3. On merits, the contentions raised by the petitioners are – (i) that the undertaking was closed in March 2000; (ii) that the respondent workman has not led any evidence in support of his allegations that the petitioners had committed unfair labour practices; and (iii) that in fact the respondent was a licensee of the petitioners. 3 4. These submissions are unsustainable. The first submission regarding the closure has not been accepted by the Labour Court. It is found that despite the petitioners’ contention that the closure was effected in March, 2000, there was not even a whisper regarding the same in the written statement which was filed in the year 2001. The Labour Court has therefore rightly disbelieved this contention of the petitioners. It is submitted that there is a Commissioner’s report on record which shows that the undertaking was closed. There is no material on record to suggest that the Commissioner’s report was read in evidence or that the same was proved by examining the author of the report. 5. As regards the second point that the respondent had not examined his co-workers, in my opinion, this cannot be said to be a fatal flaw in the case of the respondent. If the evidence on record led by the respondent himself was sufficient to prove his case, the mere fact that he had not corroborated his evidence by examining the other witnesses will not lead to the inference that he had failed to prove his case. 6. The third issue raised by the learned advocate for the petitioners, that the respondent is a licensee of the 4 petitioners, cannot be accepted in view of the earlier order of the Labour Court holding that there was an employer- employee relationship between the two. Moreover, while passing the impugned order, the Labour Court has considered the documents on record filed by the parties wherein the petitioners have issued letters indicating that the respondent was their employee. Documents at Exh.36 to 39 have been considered by the Labour Court to arrive at the conclusion that there is an employer-employee relationship between the parties. 7. Writ petition rejected. .....