The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under the M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act to entertain complaints depends on the unquestionability of the employer-employee relationship, and the court must consider this aspect before granting interim relief.

JUDGMENT - LODHA R.M., J.: - Heard Mr. J.P. Cama, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.S. Chavan, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 15.

2. Admit. Returnable forthwith.

3. Mr. P.S. Chavan, the learned Counsel waives service for respondent Nos. 1 to 15. Service on respondent No. 16 is dispensed with being formal party. We also dispense with the paper books.

4. By consent of the learned Senior Counsel and the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is treated on board and heard finally at this stage.

5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 15 are the complainants in the complaint filed under Schedule II and Item Nos. 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV read with section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act'). The said complaint is directed against the present appellants.

6. The complainants averred in the complaint that they are employees of appellant No. 1-company. They alleged that the company is engaged in unfair labour practices. They prayed for direction to the first appellant-company to cease to engage in unfair labour practices and give the facilities and privileges of permanent employees to all the complainants and for an order restraining the company from terminating their services and from removing, shifting, selling, transferring or alienating in any way the plant and machinery. The complainants also made an application for interim relief. The appellants filed reply to the application and opposed the complainant's prayer for grant of interim relief. The appellants denied the relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

7. After hearing the parties and on the basis of the available material, particularly the identity cards, the Industrial Court vide its order dated June 1, 2004 granted interim relief in favour of the complainants and restrained the appellants from terminating the services of the complainants without following due process of law pending the hearing and final disposal of the complaint. The appellants were also restrained from removing, shifting, selling, transferring or alienating in any manner the plant and machinery.

8. The present appellants aggrieved by the order of the learned Industrial Court dated June 1, 2004 granting interim relief to the complainants filed a petition being Writ Petition No. 1857 of 2004. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition by order dated July 13, 2004. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

9. The Industrial Court in its order dated June 1, 2004 held that the contention raised by the present appellant No. 1 that there is no employer employee relationship between the present appellant No. 1 and the complainants cannot be prima facie believed. The learned Single Judge observed that the present appellant No. 1 has made a patently unsustainable attempt to defeat the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court by a bold denial of existence of the employer and employee relationship.

10. In (Cipla Limited v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and others)1, 2001(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)822 the Supreme Court observed thus :

"7. But the thing is clear- if the employees are working under a contract covered by the Contract Labour (Regulation and abolition) Act then it is clear that the Labour Court or the industrial adjudicating authorities cannot have any jurisdiction to deal with the mater as it falls within the province or an appropriate Government to abolish the same. If the case put forth by the workmen is that they have been directly employed by the appellant-company but the contract itself is a camouflage and, therefore, needs to be adjudicated is a matter which can be gone into by appropriate Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. Such question cannot be examined by the Labour Court or the Industrial Court constituted under the Act. The object of the enactment is, amongst other aspect, enforcing provisions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document