1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3321/2005 (Vijay Laxmanrao Ingle VERSUS Lokmat Marathi Daily, Nagpur & 2 others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Shri Thakur, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Adgokar, counsel for the R-3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : OCTOBER 10, 2008. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur on 09.02.2005 in complaint U.L.P.A. No.875/1990. It appears that 15 complainants had filed separate complaints before the Industrial Court, Nagpur, which were heard together and decided by the common order dated 09.02.2005, which is impugned in the instant petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was employed as a Chowkidar (Security Guard) by the respondent no.1 on 01.05.1987 in clear vacancy. Though the petitioner was performing the duties of a Chowkidar regularly, his services were 2 not regularised and benefits under various awards were not granted to him. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was wrongly shown as an employee of respondent no.2 contractor i.e. M/s Universal Security Services. It was the case of the petitioner before the Industrial Court that the petitioner was under the direct supervision and control of the security officer of the respondent no.1 and without giving any notice to the petitioner, the post of Chowkidar/Guard was abolished. It is stated in the complaint that new guards were engaged in place of the complainant and since there was no compliance of the provisions of Section 25-N, 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act,the petitioner sought a declaration that the respondents had engaged in Unfair Labour Practices as contemplated under item nos.3, 5, 6, 7 & 9 of schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 3 The respondent no. 1 filed the reply/ written statement to the complaint and pleaded that the petitioner and the other complainants were not their employees. It was pleaded that respondent no.1 had never appointed the petitioner. It was also stated that the petitioner was never paid by respondent no.1. It was stated in the written statement that all the complainants including the petitioner were appointed by M/s Universal Security Services and there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. According to the respondent no.1, there was a certificate of registration issued in favour of the respondent no.1 under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and in view of that registration, the respondent no.1 was authorised to engage the contractor to provide security services. In view of the registration granted, the respondent no.1 entered into an agreement with M/s Universal 4 Security Services, Bombay to provide the security arrangements. The security services agency was an entirely different establishment, over which the respondent no.1 did not have any control. It was denied that Mr. Mawalwala was employed by respondent no.1 and it was pleaded that the petitioner and the other complainants were never appointed by anybody from Lokmat Industries Limited. On the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Industrial Court framed the issues and held that the complainants failed to prove that they were the employees of respondent no.1. The Court held that the complainants failed to establish the relationship of employer and employee between the respondent no.1 and them. In view of the aforesaid findings, the Industrial Court held that the complainants were not entitled to any relief, as sought by the complaint. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner has presented short notes of arguments on behalf of the petitioner in the Court, today. They are accepted and placed on record. I have perused the contents of the short notes of arguments and have also perused the impugned order dated 09.02.2005. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that certain other complainants had impugned the very common order dated 09.02.2005 which is impugned in this petition by filing Writ Petition Nos.3319/2005, 3324/2005, 3325/2005 and 3326/2005, and this Court had, by an order dated 11.07.2008, dismissed the petitions on the ground that the Industrial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence led before it and arrived at a finding that the complainants had not established the relationship of employer and employee vis-a-vis the complainants and the respondent no.1. 6 I have perused the common order passed by this Court on 11.07.2008 in the bunch of writ petitions. It is not in dispute that the petitioners in those four cases and the petitioner in the present case, have impugned the common order dated 09.02.2005. After perusing the order dated 09.02.2005 and the common order dated 11.07.2008 rendered by this Court, it is clear that no ground has been made out for interfering with the common order passed by the Industrial Court on 09.02.2005 by exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By elaborately considering the facts of the case, the evidence on record and the law on the subject, the Industrial Court had rightly dismissed the 15 complaints by the common order dated 09.02.2005. The Industrial Court, after scanning the evidence tendered by the parties, had reached to a conclusion that the complainants were 7 never appointed by the respondent no.1 and were appointed by respondent no.2, the security services agency. It was observed by the Industrial Court that the complainants were paid salary by the respondent no.2 and not respondent no.1. The Court further held that the duties and the postings were also controlled by respondent no.2 and the transfers of the complainants were effected by the respondent no.2. Since necessary and requisite license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 had been secured by the respondent no.1, according to the Industrial Court, it was free to enter into a contract with the security agency and enter into agreements with the security agency. On the basis of the evidence tendered by the parties on record, the Industrial Court rightly held that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the complainants and the respondent no.1. Certain documentary evidence was also rightly 8 appreciated by the Industrial Court to endorse the aforesaid findings. The agreements between the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 were placed on record and apart from considering the said documents, the Industrial Court also considered some admissions of the complainants in their cross- examination to answer the issue of relationship between the complainants and the respondent no.1, against the complainants. Hence, for the reasons recorded in this order as well as the reasons recorded in the common order passed by this Court on 11.07.2008 in Writ Petition Nos.3319/2005, 3324/2005, 3325/2005 and 3326/2005, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE