JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent.

2. The learned Counsel for private contesting respondents waives notice. The respondent No. 4 is a formal party, hence, notice to that respondent is dispensed with.

3. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.

4. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated August 11, 2003 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 1026 of 2002. The Industrial Court has held that it had no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as filed by the petitioners under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) because of the contentious issue of employee-employer relationship.

5. Briefly stated, the petitioner union filed the above numbered complaint before the Industrial Court, alleging commission of unfair labour practice by the respondents under Item 1(a) and 1(b) of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. Following reliefs were claimed in the said complaint:

"10. The complainant submits and prays that the enquiry may be made into the unfair labour practices complained herein and complainant may be given following reliefs:

a) To hold and declare that the respondents have committed unfair labour practices complaint of herein.

b) To direct the respondents to cease and desist from the unfair labour practices complaint of herein.

c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the main complaint, the respondents may please be directed to:

i) show the workmen listed at Exhibit-A on the muster roll with their retrospective date of appointment.

ii) provide ESI provident fund benefits to the workmen listed at Exhibit-A.

iii) provide leave benefits to the workmen listed at Exhibit-A.

iv) pay bonus to the workmen listed at Exhibit-A as per the provisions of payment of Bonus Act.

d) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the main complaint, the Investigation Officer may please be directed to visit the site at Nivarna Building, 24th Road, Opp. St. Teresa School, Bandra (W), Mumbai- 400 050 record and names of the workmen working along with their length of service and wage scale.

e) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the main compliant, the respondents may please be restrained from:

i) Terminating services of the workmen listed at Exhibit-A without following due process of law.

ii) Using force or violence in any manner whatsoever against the workmen listed Exhibit-A.

iii) Effecting lockout or closure without following due process of law.

f) For cost and incidental of this complaint and of the complainant.

g) For such other and further reliefs as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper.

h) For ad interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer (c), (d) (e)."

6. The respondents filed affidavit in reply to the said complaint. Inter alia, the stand taken in the reply as filed on behalf of the respondents is that, there is no master and servant relationship between the respondents and the petitioners, and that, the petitioners are self employed persons, who offered their services on job basis i.e. contract of work. In other words, it is the case of the respondents that the complainants-petitioners were paid on daily basis on performance of work undertaken by them without there being any relationship of master servant as is required for invoking the provisions of the said Act. On the basis of the stand taken in the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents, the Industrial Court proceeded to hold that because of the contentious issue of employee/employer relationship, it had no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as filed by the petitioners. The Industrial Court has relied on the decision of this Court in (Lokmat Proprietors, Lokmat News Papers Ltd. v. Prabhakar Rambhauji Choudhari others)1, reported in 2003(4) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)391.

7. The pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document