The court clarified that direct prior demands are not mandatory for initiating conciliation and that the contractor-worker relationship can be adjudicated in the context of unfair labor practices and determining employment status under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. On 28.01.2020, the Deputy Labour Commissioner/the appropriate Government, in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 10 and Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short, “the ID Act”), referred an industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Court, Aurangabad. The operative portion of the reference order reads as follows:

“(…) And whereas, considering the said report of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, it is satisfied that there is a prima-facie case for referring the said dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub Section (5) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which has now been conferred by the said Notification, the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad sending it to the Hon'ble Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad established under Hon'ble President, Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai for adjudicating the said dispute.

SCHEDULE

Demands as mentioned in the Schedule enclosed with the original file.

Signature

(Shailendra B. Pole)

Deputy Labour

Aurangabad Division Commissioner,

Aurangabad”

3. The charter of demands considered by the Conciliation Officer, which resulted in a failure report, is prefaced hereunder:

“I. All the workmen in Annexure - "A" are to be taken on muster roll of Opponent no. 1 with immediate effect,

II. All the workmen in Annexure - "A" are to be deemed to in employment of Opponent no. 1 from their respective dates of joining as set out in Annexure - "A",

III. All the workmen in Annexure - "A" are to be granted the classification of permanent workmen under the Model Standing Orders after their completing 3 months of continuous service from the first date of joining,

IV. All the workmen in Annexure - "A" are to be granted wages equal to the wages paid to the workmen named in Annexure - "B" (the highest paid to any workmen), and arrears in terms of money in respect of the wages and benefits paid to each of the workmen for the entire period actually worked in the Factory.

V. Prevent the Opponents from discharging, dismissing or otherwise teminating the workmen named in Annexure - "A" for their taking part in Industrial Dispute and for joining the Applicant by resorting Unfair Labour Practice falling under Item 1, 4, 5, 11 of Vth Schedule of Industrial Disputes Act.

VI. All the workmen in Annexure - "A" be paid full wages, who were shown to be students / training by Opponent no. 4 from Sept. 2011 to Sept. 2015

VII. The paper arrangements between Opponent no. 1 and other Opponents from time to time are sham and bogus and that Opponent no. 1 alone is the employer of workmen of Annexure- "A" and not Opponent no. 2, Opponent no. 3 and Opponent no.4.”

4. M/S Premium Transmission Private Limited, MIDC, Aurangabad, filed Writ Petition No. 7158 of 2020 against the State of Maharashtra through the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Aurangabad, Conciliation Officer, Aurangabad, and Aurangabad Mazdoor Union, Khokadpura, Aurangabad, challenging the order of reference dated 28.01.2020. The array of parties is referred to as Management, the appropriate Government, and the Union, respectively.

5. A few admitted circumstances are that the Appellant-Management is engaged in the business of manufacturing a wide range of transmission engineering products