WP 9131/10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9131 OF 2010 Anil Tukaram Gherde, C/o. Gul Dagad, Near Bharat Bakery, Bolhegaon, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar & Ors. ....Petitioners. Versus Evergreen Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd., D-73/D-74, MIDC, Ahmednagar Through its Manager and Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. P. V. Barde, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.N. Upadhye, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 7th March, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Shri. Barde for petitioner, Advocate Shri. Upadye for respondent No. 2. Petitioners filed ULP complaint on 7.3.2005 claiming relief of regularization/permanency with respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement and disputed relationship. Industrial Court framed various issues, but then in view of disputed relationship adjudicated the question of maintainability of ULP complaint first. It found that complaint was not maintainable and hence, on 17.9.2010 it dismissed the same. WP 9131/10 2 2. Shri. Barde contends that though various documents are referred, contents thereof are not looked into and hence, impact thereof on facts is not considered. In the alternative and without prejudice, he points out that the contractor, alleged to be real employer of petitioners, has been brought into existence on 17.3.2005 though respondent Nos. 1 and 2 obtained license under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for the first time. He is relying upon various judgments to substantiate his contention, that relationship here was indisputable. 3. Shri. Upadhye, on the other hand, invites attention to cross examination of witnesses examined by petitioners to show that effort was made to establish direct relationship of petitioners with present respondent Nos. 1 by ignoring contract. 4. The law on this point is well settled. Industrial Cort or Labour Court functioning under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 gets jurisdiction only when relationship is either indisputable or undisputed. Here, as the employer has denied the relationship, it cannot be stated to be undisputed. Whether it is indisputable or not is the question which Industrial Court ought to have answered. 5. The complaint has been filed on 7.3.2005 and employees claim WP 9131/10 3 that they were working since June 2001. Again from 2001 what was the position then prevailed and whether employers have brought on record any material to show that even then payment was being made through same contractor, is the another question. The Industrial Court has not answered it. Merely because on 17.3.2005 employees obtained registration of contract, that by itself is not sufficient either to hold that there was no contractor when complaint was filed or then subsequent contract needs to be ignored. 6. I do not find it necessary to refer various judgments relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner. The issue has been gone into in detail by me in the case of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Vs. Member, Industrial Court, Civil Lines, Nagpur & Ors. reported in 2006 (3) ALL MR 552. 7. The perusal of impugned judgment of Industrial Court shows that Industrial Court after mentioning necessary events has only referred to exhibit numbers without pointing what those documents imply. 8. In this situation, I find that interest of justice necessitated in granting liberty to both parties to substantiate their contentions before Industrial Court by producing necessary material and by further leading evidence in accordance with law. WP 9131/10 4 9. Only for that purpose, the impugned order dated 17.9.2010 delivered by Industrial Court in ULP complaint No. 36/2005 is quashed and set aside. Proceedings therein are restored back to the file of Industrial Court. Parties are at liberty to file necessary documents and lead evidence in support thereof. 10. It is pointed out, in this Court during the pendency of ULP complaint employer was depositing amount and petitioners were withdrawing it from Industrial Court. That arrangement continued because of orders of this Court dated 5th October 2010. The same arrangement to continue during pendency of complaint. The Industrial Court shall attempt to decide the ULP complaint at the earliest. 11. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. No costs. [ B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] ssc/wp9131.10