1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. L.P.A.No. No. 222/2011 in WRIT PETITION NO.970/2011 (Rekha Sheshrao Ingle .vs. Vidya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Nagpur and another. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : JULY 08, 2011 Heard Advocate Shri P.D. Meghe for the appellant and Advocate Shri P.C. Marpakwar for respondents no.1 and 2. The order of learned Single Judge of this court dated 25.2.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 970/2011 is questioned. The learned Single Judge while admitting the petition against the grant of interim relief by the Industrial Court has stayed that direction. According to Advocate Shri Meghe, the stay granted is not proper as even if the appellant is presumed to be an employee of a contractor, liability of the principal employer to pay minimum wages is recognized in law and by interim order, Industrial Court has only directed employer to pay minimum wages during the pendency of the complaint. He has further invited our attention to consideration of documents by 2 Industrial Court to urge that after considering the documents filed by both the sides, Industrial Court has found it proper to accept the documents tendered by the present appellant and by relying upon it, interim relief has been granted. He invites attention to order dated 24.6.2011 passed by us in L.P.A.202/2011 to contend that same order and logic therein holds good even in present matter and LPA accordingly needs to be allowed. Advocate Shri Marpakwar contends that in reply filed in other ULP Complaint No. 38/2010 which gave rise to LPA No. 202/2011, except for bare denial of relationship of employer and employee, there was no other pleading and also documents filed did not even prima facie prove existence of contractor. He invites attention to reply filed in ULP Complaint No. 37/2010 to point out that there contractor has been expressly pointed out and the Industrial Court has looked into documents which show that name of that contractor as M/s Patel Contractor. In this view of the matter, according to him, the relationship cannot be said to be indisputable and the restrictions on the cognizance of such dispute by Industrial Court under Section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 , therefore, squarely apply. We find substance in the contention of Advocate Shri Marpakwar. The distinguishing feature pointed out were absent in LPA No. 202/11. Perusal of para 23 of the impugned order reveals that in some muster registers, at the top there is a stamp of M/s Patel 3 Contractor. The appellant employee has explained that same has been put lateron and when she procured xerox copy, such stamp was not there. The inquiry into these aspects is inquiry into disputed questions and necessitates leading of evidence. In the light of various judgments of this Court in Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Ltd. .vs. Sunil Rambhau Iwale and ors. - 2001 III CLR 728; Vividh Kamgar Sabha .vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd. and another- (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 381; General Labour Union (Red Flag), Bombay .vs. Ahmedabad MFG & Calcio Printing Co. Ltd. and others – 1995 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 175 and Janprabha Offset Works .vs. Sarva Shramik Sanghm Jalgaon and another – 2007 (4) Mh.L.J. 97 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. .vs. D.N. Vidhate and another – 2003 III CLR 598 and M.I.D.C. .vs. Member, Industrial Court – 2006 (4) Mh.L.J. 21, it is apparent that such inquiry by Industrial Court under MRTU and PULP Act is not permitted. However, we are not concluding the issue at this stage. The question is left open for consideration by the Industrial Court at appropriate time but then grant of interim relief by the Industrial Court has been rightly stayed by the learned Single Judge. The subject matter of ULP Complaint No. 38/2010 and present ULP Complaint No. 37/2010 is more or less identical. ULP Complaint No. 38/2010 is already made time bound by us on 24.6.2011. We, therefore, direct learned Member of the Industrial Court to decide 4 ULP Complaint No. 37/2010 also accordingly along with ULP Complaint No.38/2010. Subject to these observations, LPA is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE halwai