JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners and the respondent No. 1. Perused the records.

2. The petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 27-1-2000, passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the Complaint (ULP) No. 889 of 1994, filed by the petitioners, holding that the workers employed by the respondent No. 2 in the canteen in question are not the employees of the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the complaint under section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as "the said Act", was not maintainable.

3. While challenging the impugned judgment and order, the learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the Court below has totally overlooked the fact that the respondent No. 1 was statutorily bound to have a canteen in the premises of the undertaking and accordingly had such canteen wherein the petitioners were continuously employed irrespective of change of the contractors from time to time, and therefore the respondent No. 1 is their employer within the meaning of the said expression under section 3(14) of the Bombay Industrial Rel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document