The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of an employer-employee relationship and the absence of unfair labour practice under the M.R.T.U. PULP Act, 1971.

Headnote:
Unfair Labour Practice - Employer-Employee Relationship - M.R.T.U. PULP Act, 1971, Schedule IV
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner union filed a complaint of unfair labour practice against the respondent company and a social organization, alleging termination of services and deprivation of wages and benefits for female workers. The Labour Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the Industrial Court overturned the decision.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no employer-employee relationship between the respondent company and the female workers, and the complaint of unfair labour practice was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was the existence of an employer-employee relationship and unfair labour practice under the M.R.T.U. PULP Act, 1971.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the activities of the social organization aimed at providing work to needy women did not establish an employer-employee relationship with the respondent company. The Industrial Court's decision was based on the absence of such a relationship and the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of unfair labour practice.
Final Decision: The court upheld the Industrial Court's decision, dismissing the complaint and ruling that neither the petitioner union nor the female employees were entitled to any relief.

JUDGEMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---In its efforts to get butter for the bread of the 120 female workers, the petitioner union appears to have caused to disappear the whole loaf of the bread itself. These female workers certainly belonged to a class of haves-not poverty struck families, unfortunate and some of them even destitute women of the society. All of them were earning their livelihood under the economic shelter set up and provided by the social organisation, viz., Shradhanand Mahila Ashram established by the dedicated social missionaries wholly devoted to the cause of social protection of those women who lose the family protection for one or the other reason and to enable them to become economically and thereby socially self reliant and independent.

2.On a gross guess work in the air the petitioner Union filed a complaint of Unfair Labour Practice before the Labour Court under Item-I, Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. PULP Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the respondent No. 1 company, against the respondent No. 2 Shradhanand Mahila Ashram and the State Government. I fail to understand why the State Government has been dragged in the present litigation. There was neither any allegation against the State Government nor was any relief sought against it.

3.It was a complaint of unfair labour practice under Item-I of Schedule IV of the Act which is reproduced below:---

1. To discharge or dismiss employees-

(a) by way of victimisation:

(b) not in good faith, but in the colourable exercise of the employer's rights:

(d) for patently false reasons:

(e) on untrue or trumped up allegations of absence without leave:

(f) in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic enquiry or with undue haste;

(g) for misconduct of a minor or technical character, without having any regard to the nature of the particular misconduct or the past record of service of the employee, so as to amount to a shockingly disproportionate punishment.

According to the petitioner Union the employees on whose behalf the complaint was filed were the employees of the respondent No. 1 company and the respondent No. 2 Mahila Ashram was its labour contractor inducted with an intention of depriving the workers of wages and benefits and other privileges of the permanent workers. It was further alleged in the complaint that the work done by them was an integral part of the work of the respondent company and that the work was supervised and controlled by the company. It was also averred that the work done by the workers on the premises of the Mahila Ashram was of perennial nature and therefore, they should have been made permanent and regular by the respondent Company. The respondent No. 2 Mahila Ashram was dubbed as a fictitious contractor having no existence in the eyes of the law and that on lifting of the veil the true employer-employees relationship between the respondent Company and the workers would be revealed, the petitioner Union averred.

4.The respondent Company denied any employer-employee relationship between itself and the workers. According to the petitioner Union such a repudiation of the contract of employment by the respondent Company "tantamount to termination of service in the eyes of law even though the workers actually continue working as before." It was further alleged by the petitioner Union that after a letter to the Contract Labour Board both the respondents immediately colluded to terminate the services of the workmen and that the Union further apprehended that though there was plenty of work they would be terminated. It is further alleged that the Supervisor of the Mahila Ashram told the workers that in view of the agitation started by them both the respondents had taken a decision to stop the work completely. According to the petitioner Union, therefore, the repudiation of contract made by the princip

Click Here to Read the rest of this document