1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.886 OF 2008 Pandurang Krishna Bhosale. ...Petitioner. Vs. M/s.Universal Constructions & Machinery Equipment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. Mahesh Thorat for the Petitioner. Mr. Kiran Bapat for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for Respondent No.6. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. March 31, 2008. P.C.: In a complaint of unfair labour practices, the Industrial Court has, in its impugned order dated 7th January 2008, declined to grant interim relief. The order is impugned in these proceedings. The Industrial Court has, prima facie, found that the salaries of the workmen were being paid by a contractor, Mass Systems. The contractor has not been impleaded as a party to the Complaint of unfair labour practices. The contention of the Union is that the 2 agreement with the Contractor is sham. The Industrial Court is justified in holding that this could not be the subject matter of a determination at the interlocutory stage. Though the registration of the Contractor has taken place after the complaint was filed, the Industrial Court noted that the process has been initiated earlier. Be that as it may, that in itself would not be a circumstance that would give rise to an inference that the workmen are direct employees of the principal employer. At the present stage, though it is not appropriate for this Court to arrive at any conclusive findings, it must be emphasized that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarva Shramik Sangh vs. Indian Smelting & Refining Co. Ltd., 2003 III CLR 949, the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a complaint of unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, arises only where the relationship of the employer and employee is undisputed or indisputable. That would not be the case where there is a serious dispute between the parties on whether or not there is a valid contractual arrangement. For these reasons, the Industrial Court was not in error in declining the prayer for interim relief. The 3 petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. .....