1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5134 OF 2010 (M/s. Hotel Rajdhani vs. Gopal G. Sharma & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. OCTOBER 20, 2010. Heard finally with the consent of Shri Puranik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Raut, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 7 (Caveators). Shri Puranik, learned counsel has stated that complainants No. 1, 5 & 6 before the Industrial Court are admittedly in employment and hence the petitioner has no grievance against the impugned order insofar as it relates to them. However, blanket direction not to terminate them, issued is without any justification. He has further stated that complainants No. 2, 3, 4 and 7 are the employees of a contractor by name Nitinkumar and documents showing payment released to Nitinkumar for work done by him are also placed before the Industrial Court. Those documents and defences in this respect raised in written notes of argument or reliance upon the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sarva Shramik Sangh vs. Janprabha Offset Works, reported at 2007 III CLR 854, has been totally ignored 2 by Industrial Court. His contention is, till Industrial Court records a finding that relationship is either undisputed or indisputable, it could not have proceeded to grant any interim relief to complainants No. 2, 3, 4 & 7. Only to show fairness and without prejudice to his contentions, the learned counsel also accepted to deposit the monthly amount of wages payable to these respondents in Industrial Court. Shri Raut, learned counsel has urged that findings recorded by the Industrial Court are only for granting interim relief and, therefore, prima facie in nature. According to him, existence of relationship is found because of working of respondents in the establishment of the petitioner and because of their statements recorded by provident fund authorities. He has further urged that so called contractor Nitinkumar has himself filed a ULP Complaint seeking permanency before the Industrial Court against the petitioner. His contention is, in such a situation, the impugned order does not call for any interference and writ petition is not maintainable. The perusal of records show that the petitioner has raised specific defence about status of complainants No. 2, 3, 4 & 7. That defence or its implications are not considered by the Industrial Court at all. It is well settled position that only if relationship of the employer and employee is undisputed or 3 indisputable, the Industrial Court can exercise jurisdiction. Here, the relationship is not undisputed and, therefore, Industrial Court has to find out on the strength of documents available before it whether relationship is indisputable. The impugned order of Industrial Court does not show any consideration of this aspect. Mere working of complainants in the establishment of the petitioner is not sufficient here as the petitioner is accepting that they are working as employee of his contractor by name Nitinkumar. Similarly, statements made before the provident fund authorities need to be evaluated properly in order to record such finding. That exercise has also not been undertaken. In this situation, I find that because of fairness shown by the petitioner, interest of complainants is adequately protected. The petitioner shall deposit wages payable to complainants No. 2, 3, 4 & 7 before the Industrial Court every month till the Industrial Court decides the controversy. The payment being made to contractor shall be debited and the amount so debited shall be credited before the Industrial Court. The said arrangement shall be without prejudice to the petitioner as also complainants. The complainants are free to withdraw that amount without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the matter. The impugned order insofar as it protects the services of the complainants No. 1, 5 & 7, is modified 4 only to read that the petitioner shall not terminate their services except in accordance with law. With these directions and observations, writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.