IMPORTANT POINT
In order to entertain a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, it has to be established that the claimant was an employee of the employer against whom complaint is made, under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Headnote:(i) LABOUR LAW-Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Complaint under-It has to be established that claimant was an employee of employer against whom complaint is made, under the Industrial Disputes Act-When there is no dispute about such relationship, the Maharashtra Act would have full application.
       Held : There can be no quarrel with the proposition as contended by the appellants that the jurisdiction to decide a matter would essentially depend upon pleadings in the plaint. But in a case like the present one, where the fundamental fact decides the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint itself the position would be slightly different. In order to entertain a complaint under the Maharashtra Act it has to be established that the claimant was an employee of the employer against whom complaint is made, under the ID Act. When there is no dispute about such relationship, as noted in paragraph 9 of CIPLA s case (supra) the Maharashtra Act would have full application. When that basic claim is disputed obviously the issue has to be adjudicated by the forum which is competent to adjudicate. The sine qua non for application of the concept of unfair labour practice is the existence of a direct relationship of employer and employee. Until that basic question is decided the forum recedes to the background in the sense that first that question has to be got separately adjudicated. Even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that two forums are available, the Court certainly can say which is the more appropriate forum to effectively get it adjudicated and that is what has been precisely said in the three decisions. Once the existence of contractor is accepted, it leads to an inevitable conclusion that a relationship exists between the contractor and the complainant. According to them, the contract was a facade and sham one which has no real effectiveness. As rightly observed in CIPLA s case (supra), it is the relationship existing by contractual arrangement which is sought to be abandoned and negated and in its place the complainant s claim is to the effect that there was in reality a relationship between the employer and the complainant directly. It is the establishment of the existence of such an arrangement which decides the jurisdiction. That being the position, CIPLA s case (supra) rightly held that an industrial dispute has to be raised before the Tribunal under the ID Act to have the issue relating to actual nature of employment sort out. That being the position, we find that there is no scope for re-consideration CIPLA s case (supra), the view which really echoed the one taken about almost a decade back. (Para 21)
       (ii) INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES-Meaning and intention of legislature-It is to be ascertained not only from the language in which it is clothed but also by considering its nature, its design and consequences.
       Held : The meaning and intention of the legislature, which must govern the interpretation of a provision in a statute, have to be ascertained not only from the language in which it is clothed but also by considering its nature, its design and the consequences, which would follow in construing it either way. Reports of Commissions or Inquiry Committees preceding the introduction of a Bill for the enactment have been always viewed as providing evidence of the historical facts or of surrounding circumstances or of mischief or evil intended to be remedied and at times even for interpreting the Act, as external aids to construction of the Act. (Para 18)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Appellants contend that the view which was first expressed by this Court in General Labour Union (Red Flag), Bombay v. Ahmedabad Mfg. And Calico Printing Co. Ltd. and Ors. (1995 Supp (1) SCC 175), subsequently echoed in many cases including Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd. and Anr. (2001 (2) SCC 381) and finally in CIPLA Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors. (2001 (3) SCC 101) is legally unsound and needs a fresh look.

3. It was held in first of the three cases that the workmen have to establish that they are workmen of the respondent-company before they can file any complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (in short the Maharashtra Act ). Similar was the view expressed in Vividh Kamgar s case (supra) and CIPLA Ltd. s case (supra).

4. According to the appellants a fresh look is necessary in the matter, as various relevant provisions were not kept in view when the above decisions were rendered.

5. Ms. Indira Jaisingh, made leading submissions followed by Shri V.A. Mohta, Mr. Chander Udai Singh, Sr. Advocates and others on behalf of the appellants, whereas Shri P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel followed by Sarvashri D.A. Dave, B.R. Naik and Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Advocates and others responded on behalf of the respondents. On behalf of the appellants-workmen, relying upon Section 59 of the Maharashtra Act, it was urged strenuously that the machinery under the said Act as well as Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ID Act ) are co-extensive and equally wide and the scope of judicial determination under both the Acts is the same and that therefore there was no warrant to assume that the procedure envisaged under the Maharashtra Act is summary. While pursuing further the said stand it is claimed that in cases where the workmen seek to obtain a declaration that they were at all times the workmen of the principal employer and the interposition of contractor or engagement through him was neither bona fide nor genuine but merely a camouflage designed to defeat the rights of the laborers remedies are available under both the above enactments to be availed of at the option and choice of the workman concerned under anyone or other, though not under both. It was also contended that Section 7 or Section 28 and 32 of the Maharashtra Act cannot be construed so as to keep out of the purview of the Act, even an adjudication as to the existence of relationship of the workmen vis-a-vis the principal employer not withstanding that it is disputed or denied by the principal employer and being a beneficial legislation meant to provide workmen a more beneficial and expeditious additional remedy a liberal construction has to be placed in furtherance of the avowed object. Further, it is contended that when more than one statute governed the situation the provisions have to be harmoniously construed, giving each of them a full play rationally without whittling down the scope of anyone of them, keeping in view the basic principle that where there is no express bar to a jurisdiction, ouster of jurisdiction could not be lightly inferred, to avoid rendering provisions in a statute otiose or redundant. Most rational way of such an harmonious construction would therefore, according to the appellants lead to the ultimate conclusions a) of questions relating to abolition of contracts and consequential absorption can be raised before Industrial Courts, though by virtue of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the Contract Labour Act ) the question relating to abolition will be decided only by the Government and the Industrial Forums will keep the matter pending, to finally dispose of the other issues after the decision of Government under the said Act and b) the dispute relating to the sham nature of the employment through contractor can be raised under the Maharashtra Act or ID

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1050

IMPORTANT POINTIn order to entertain a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, it has to be established that the claimant was an employee of the employer against whom complaint is made, under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
In order to entertain a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, it has to be established that the claimant was an employee of the employer against whom complaint is made, under the Industrial Disputes Act.