JUDGMENT - H.W. DHABE, J.:---Parties by Counsel. A short question which is raised in this Patent Appeal on behalf of the appellant is that unless an approach notice under section 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short, "the B.I.R. Act") is given the respondent No. 3 whose services were terminated by the appellant bank cannot be held to be an employee within the meaning of the expression "employee" as defined under section 2(13) of the said Act which is applicable to the appellant bank. The submission thus is that if the respondent No. 3 is not an employee within the meaning of the B.I.R. Act the would not be an employee within the meaning of the said expression under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, "the Act") also and his application, therefore, under the said Act would not maintainable. It may be stated at this stage that as per section 3(5) of the Act if the industry to which this Act is applicable is governed by the B.I.R. Act the definition of the word "employee" given in the said Act and if the industry to which this Act is applicable is governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document