JUDGMENT (A.H. JOSHI, J.)

Background:

These letters patent appeals arising out of common judgment and raising common question of law, are being disposed of by this judgment.

Admitted Facts:

2. The appeals proceed on certain admitted premises, which are narrated as follows:

(a) The appellants claim to be employed by respondent.

(b) Appellants filed separate complaints before the Industrial Court, Maharashtra Bench at Nagpur, under Sections 5, 28, 30 r/w Section 26 & 27 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union, and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), with similar prayers in all complaints which are as follows:

"(i) declare that the respondent has engaged in and is still engaging in the unfair labour practices complained of;

(ii) direct the respondent to cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labour practices complained of;

(iii) direct the respondent to withdraw temporarily during the pendency of these proceedings and also finally the impugned unfair labour practices forthwith and to grant to the complainant the status and all other privileges and benefits that are applicable to regular and permanent Peons with retrospective effect and in any case from the date on which the complainant completed 240 days of continuous service;

(iv) direct the respondent to give to the complainant the benefits as are made applicable through Palekar and Bachhawat Award.

(c) According to complainants, the employer had engaged in unfair trade practice under item 9, Schedule 4 of MRTU & PULP Act.

(d) In their respective complaints, the complainants pleaded that each one of them had joined the employment of the respondent Company as a peon on different dates by oral orders, and that they were performing duties in the Office of respondent regularly, and had completed continuous service of 240 days and had gained the status of permanent employees under the provisions of Standing Orders and w were entitled to all benefits available to permanent employees working in the respondent Company.

Respondent/Employer's Plea Before Industrial Court.

3. The employer opposed the complaints on following grounds:

(a) the complainants were neither appointed nor employed by the respondents.

(b) There was no employer and employee relationship.

(c) Some officers might have employed the complainants in their personal capacity, and for attending to their requirements, the complainants may be visiting the place of establishment of the respondent.

4. In the light of aforesaid pleadings, the complainants were heard. The workmen tendered their evidence, and the employer opposed the complaints by recording oral evidence of some of its Officers to oppose the complaint and in rebuttal of the evidence of the complainants.

5. The Industrial Court rendered a common judgment dated February 12, 2000, thereby allowing the complaints, and declaring the employer's action to be by way of unfair 10 labour practice.

6. Aggrieved by judgment of Industrial Court, the employer filed separate writ petitions. Writ petitions were heard and decided by common judgment, and order dated November 27,2002. By this judgment, the rule was made absolute, and common judgment dated February 12, 2000 was set aside and complaints were dismissed.

Findings in judgment Under Appeal:

7. Learned single Judge recorded the finding as to the maintainability of complaints under MRTU and PULP Act as follows:

"20. ... In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the contention of Mr. Thakur that the ratio of the three cases of the Supreme Court i.e. (1) General Labour Union (Red Flag), Bombay v. Ahmedabad 30 Mfg. and Calico Printing Co. Ltd., and Others, 1995-II-LLJ-765 (2) Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Others (supra), is distinguishable and cannot be applied to the case at hand, does not find favour with this Court. Merely because the facts differ as in the three cases, where the employees had approached the Court under the MRTU & PULP Act with a c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document