Case: Fulchand Baburao Gedam Vs. Lokmat

grounds:-(a) That the finding of the Single Judge that the employer employee relationship is under dispute is unassailable. (b) The Labour Court which is the authority under MRTU and PULP act, which enjoys summary jurisdiction and which has a limited scope of exercise of powers does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints, and therefore, the complaints, which were wrongly entertained have been rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge by allowing the Employers Writ Petitions. (c) Once the complaints under MRTU and PULP Act, were dismissed as not maintainable, only forum available was under the provisions of industrial Dispute Act. (d) It was not a case of denial of justice requiring interference in Letters Patent Appeals. (e) That the Letters Patent Appeals are not maintainable.( 14 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Marpakwar placed reliance on the following Judgments. (1) (1995)3 Supreme Court Cases 78 , Shramik Uttarsh Sabha Vs. Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd and others. (2) 1995 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 175, General Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay Vs. Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. And others. (3) 2001 III CLR 1025 Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling S/w Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and Ors. (4) 2001 III CLR 728, Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Ltd. (Tubes division, Ahmednagar- Vs. Sunmil Rambhau Iwale and Ors. (5) (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 381, Vividh Kamgar Sabha Vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd. , and another. (6) (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 101, CIPLA Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and others. (7) 2005 (4) Mh. L. J. Tukaram Tanaji Mandhare and another Vs. M/s Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. , and others. (8) (2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 455, Sarva Shramik Sangh Vs. Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd. And others. (9) 2006 (2) Bom. LC 596 (Bom) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. General Employees Union and others. (10) 2006 (1) ALL MR 494, National Textile Corporation (SM) Ltd. Vs. Devraj Chandrabali Pai. (11) 2007 (4) Mh. L. J. Page 97 Janprabha Offset Works Vs. Sarva shramik Sangh, Jalgaon and another( 15 ) WE have carefully considered the issues involved, and submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties. ( 16 ) IT is necessary to note that it was not the complainants case that:-(a) they were in fact, employed by a Contractor, and that said arrangement was sham and bogus; or (b) though they were employed through Contractor, they were in fact, rendering the job of regular nature and, therefore, by unveiling the camouflage of the contract labour, they were to be treated as direct employees; or (c) they were claiming the abolition of contract labour and absorption in employment. ( 17 ) IT is also seen that even it was not the employers case that the complainants were contractors employees genuinely employed as such, and therefore, the complaints were not maintainable. The entire case of employer was of plain and simplicitor denial, as it claimed that the workman concerned may have been employed/engaged by its Officers in their individual capacities. ( 18 ) THE learned Advocates for the parties have not cited any decision on the point as to in what manner the situation shall be dealt with if the case before the Court is of such a nature where the workmen are not employed through contractor, but the employer has barely denied the employer " employee relationship. ( 19 ) THE legal position as to contract labour and their absorption of the workmen in the employment of the Principal Employer can be summarised as follows:-(i) In Cipla Ltd. , Vs. Maharashtra General Union 2001 (2) SCC 381 and in Sarva Shramik Sangh v Indian Smelting and Refining Company ltd. , 2003 (10 SCC 455 2003 III CLR, it has been held that the authority under MRTU and PULP Act does not have jurisdiction to decide as to whether the workmen are in fact, directly employed by the principal Employer in the background of plea of agency of contract labour and the same is required to be adjudicated under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. (ii) Similarly in Steel Authority of India Ltd. , V National union of Waterfront Workers and others 2001 (7) SCC 1 it has been held that to abolish contract labour in any industry is the statutory function of appropriate Government. ( 20 ) PERUSAL of judgment impugned as well as the judgments of learned Single Judge of this Court in (1) 2006 (2) Bom. LC 596 (Bom)Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. , Vs. General Employees Union, and (2) 2007 (4) Mh. L. J. , Janprabha Offset works Vs. Sarva Shramik sangh, Jalgaon, discloses that in these cases in which the employees concerned were employed with Canteen contractor, or a Contractor, and that it was alleged that the Contract was sham and bogus and, therefore, the workmen and were claiming to be employees of company by lifting veil as in case of the workmen in the case of Cipla Ltd. , supra. In case of Cipla Ltd. Complainants had claimed that the contract Labour be declared to be a sham and bogus device, and demanded a declaration that they be declared as direct employees. This type of prayer in complaint under Section 28 MRTU and PULP Act, was held impermissible. In the complaints filed by the workmen in the present cases such prayer is not made directly or indirectly. ( 21 ) AS stated above, issue of contract labour is not involved, directly or indirectly. We, therefore, hold that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases is not applicable to present cases. ( 22 ) IN the backdrop of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that applying ratio laid down in three Judgments of the Supreme Court referred to in para 19 would amount to including the appellants amongst the class of workmen to which they do not belong. ( 23 ) IN view of the above discussion, we hold that the complaints filed by the appellants before the Labour Court were maintainable.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]( 17 ) IT is also seen that even it was not the employers case that the complainants were contractors employees genuinely employed as such, and therefore, the complaints were not maintainable. The entire case of employer was of plain and simplicitor denial, as it claimed that the workman concerned may have been employed/engaged by its Officers in their individual18 ) THE learned Advocates for the parties have not cited any decision on the point as to in what manner the situation shall be dealt with if the case before the Court is of such a nature where the workmen are not employed through contractor, but the employer has barely denied the employer " employee20 ) PERUSAL of judgment impugned as well as the judgments of learned Single Judge of this Court in (1) 2006 (2) Bom. LC 596 (Bom)Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. , Vs. General Employees Union, and (2) 2007 (4) Mh. L. J. , Janprabha Offset works Vs. Sarva Shramik sangh, Jalgaon, discloses that in these cases in which the employees concerned were employed with Canteen contractor, or a Contractor, and that it was alleged that the Contract was sham and bogus and, therefore, the workmen and were claiming to be employees of company by lifting veil as in case of the workmen in the case of Cipla Ltd. , supra. In case of Cipla Ltd. Complainants had claimed that the contract Labour be declared to be a sham and bogus device, and demanded a declaration that they be declared as direct employees. This type of prayer in complaint under Section 28 MRTU and PULP Act, was held impermissible. In the complaints filed by the workmen in the present cases such prayer is not made directly or21 ) AS stated above, issue of contract labour is not involved, directly or indirectly. We, therefore, hold that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases is not applicable to present22 ) IN the backdrop of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that applying ratio laid down in three Judgments of the Supreme Court referred to in para 19 would amount to including the appellants amongst the class of workmen to which they do not23 ) IN view of the above discussion, we hold that the complaints filed by the appellants before the Labour Court were maintainable.