Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.
HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED
Versus
HINDUSTAN LEVER RESEARCH CENTRE EMPLOYEES UNION
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1240 of 2001 WRIT PETITION NO. 1537 OF 2001
Decided On : June 15, 2009
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES - MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT, 1971 - SECURITY GUARDS - RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE - MAINTAINABILITY OF COMPLAINT - JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL COURT - SCOPE OF ENQUIRY - EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - TRANSFER OF SECURITY GUARDS - MALAFIDE INTENTION - UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The Complainant Union, representing 27 security guards engaged by the Respondent Company through the Security Guards Board, filed a complaint alleging unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Respondent Company challenged the maintainability of the complaint, arguing that there was no employer-employee relationship between them and the security guards, and that the complaint did not conform to the requirements of the Act. The Industrial Court initially rejected the Respondent Company's application, but later entertained a subsequent application raising similar issues.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Industrial Court erred in entertaining the subsequent application and in holding that the complaint was not maintainable in relation to the ground of equal pay for equal work. The Court reiterated the settled legal principle that, for the limited purpose of examining grievances regarding unfair labour practices, there exists a relationship of employer and employee between the registered employer and the security guard allotted by the Security Guards Board. The Court also held that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and that the scope of enquiry included examining the allegation of malafide transfer of security guards as an unfair labour practice.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint filed by the Complainant Union was maintainable under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971? 2. Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint? 3. Whether the scope of enquiry included examining the allegation of malafide transfer of security guards as an unfair labour practice? 4. Whether the Industrial Court erred in holding that the complaint was not maintainable in relation to the ground of equal pay for equal work?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The relationship of employer and employee exists between the registered employer and the security guard allotted by the Security Guards Board, for the limited purpose of examining grievances regarding unfair labour practices. 2. The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints alleging unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. 3. The scope of enquiry in such complaints includes examining allegations of malafide transfer of security guards as an unfair labour practice. 4. The Industrial Court erred in holding that the complaint was not maintainable in relation to the ground of equal pay for equal work, as the issue of equal pay for equal work is a matter to be determined on the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the Respondent Company's Writ Petition No. 1240/2001 with costs and allowed the Complainant Union's Writ Petition No. 1537/2001 with costs. The Industrial Court was directed to decide the pending complaint on its own merits in accordance with law.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, complaint has been filed by the Complainant in its capacity as recognised Union to espouse the cause of 27 security guards engaged by the Respondent Company in its Research Centre at Chakala, andheri (E), Mumbai. In substance, the grievance of the Complainant is that the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 to 4 have engaged in and are continuing to engage in the unfair labour practices under Items 4 and 5 of Schedule II and Items 3,5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 on and from 16/1/2000. It is stated that 27 security guards named in the list accompanying the said complaint were engaged at the Research Centre of the Respondent No. 1 through the Respondent No. 4 Security Guards Board after July 1987. Complainant has stated that prior thereto, Respondent No. 1 had engaged the security guards through Contractors, namely, Contra Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation and Welfare Act, 1981 1981 complaint (ULP) No. 1086/1985, claiming that the Contractor through whom the security guards were engaged was a sham contractor and the security guards employed through such contractors be declared as permanent workmen of the respondent No. 1-Company. It is stated that after institution of the said complaint, the concerned security guards were removed from services of respondent No. 1. Instead, the Respondent No. 1 Company engaged other set of security guards through another Security Agency (Contractor) from 2/7/1986 to 28/7/1987. It is further stated that Respondent No. 1 Company, for the first time started engaging security guards through the Security guards Board (Respondent No. 4), after July 1987-as the Respondent No. 1 company was registered with the Board. It is further stated that some of the security guards employed earlier through M/s. Security and Personnel Services by the Respondent No. 1 Company were registered with the Security Guards board and the Board allotted the same security guards to the Respondent No. 1 Company in the year 1987 and they were still working in the Respondent no. 1 Company. Names of three such security guards are mentioned in the complaint i. e. , sarvashri R. S. Tiwari, P. N. Jha and B. N. Dubey. The complainants have asserted that all the remaining security guards who are concerned with the present proceedings were also employed by one or the other security agencies carrying out security as well as watch and ward work on contract basis, prior to getting registered or getting allotted by the Security guards Board. The Complainant further asserts that all the security guards or the security agencies and the principal employer including Respondent No. 1 were covered by the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act prior to registered and/or getting allotted by the Security Guards Board. After giving this background the Comnant assertthat the service conditions such as wages, allowances, leave facilities etc. of the workmen employed at the research Centre are covered by various settlements and Awards. The complainant has relied on the Award dated 30/5/1997 passed by the industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 11/1994 amongst other awards/settlements. It is the case
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
