FACTS:
The petitioners filed complaints under section 28 read with items l (a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act of 1971, before the Industrial Court/Labour Court for certain reliefs claiming that they are employees of the respondent company.
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION:
In view of MRTU & PULP Act, whether a perso who is employed by a contractor to undertake the work of principal employer, is an employee under the Act?
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT:
The respondent company, however, had contended the status of the employees in all the petitions and has argued in its written statement that there was no relationship of employer employee with any of the petitioners. The company had also submitted that the complainants were employed through the contractors and that the issue regarding maintainability of the complaints would have to be decided by the court.
During the pendency of these complaints, the judgments in the case of Vividh Kamgar Sabha v Kalyani Steel Ltd. [(2001) 2 SCC 381] and Cipla Ltd. v Maharashtra General Kamgar Union [(200l) 3 SCC 101] were pronounced by the Supreme Court, and relying upon these decisions, an application was made by the respondent company before the court that the complaints were liable to be dismissed as there was no employer employee relationship between it and the complainants.
VERDICT OF THE INDUSTRIAL COURT/LABOUR COURT:
The Industrial Court/Labour Court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondent company by holding that the judgments in Kalyani Steel Ltd. and Cipla Ltd. were applicable to the facts involved in the complaints and, therefore, the complaints deserve to be dismissed.
VERDICT OF THE HIGH COURT:
The learned single Judge noted that in the case of Dattatraya Kashinath & Ors. v Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Ors. [1996 II LLJ l69] and in Sakhar Kamgar Union v Shri Chhatrapati Rajaram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, and Ors. [1996 II CLR 67] had held that a conjoint reading of section 3(5) of the MRTU and PULP Act and sections 3(13) and 3 (14) of the BIR Act would indicate that even a person employed through a contractor in an industry governed by the BIR Act is regarded as an employee under the MRTU and PULP Act and the complaint filed by such an employee is maintainable under the MRTU and PULP Act. However, it was felt that another learned single Judge of the Court, Justice Khandeparkar had expressed contrary views.
Therefore, reference was made to a larger Bench in view of the conflicting decisions of the learned single Judges of the High Court.
The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the complaint filed was not liable to be dismissed.
VERDICT OF THE SUPREME COURT:
The apex Court, in view of the difference of opinion in the decisions of the cases relevant in the instant case and the importance of the controversy involved and its application particularly in the State of Maharashtra, referred the matter to a larger bench.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS