Back
2010 Supreme(Bom) 131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.
BHASKAR JANARDHANRAO VAIDYA - Petitioner.
vs.
MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT, AMRAVATI and others - Respondents.
W.P. No. 3211 of 2005
Decided on: 27-1-2010.
For petitioner: J. T. Gilda
For respondent Nos. 1 and 2: A. G.P.
For respondent No.3: R. E. Moharir
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in resolving employment disputes and the requirement to establish a direct employer-employee relationship.
Headnote:
ULP Complaint - Employment Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25-F, Section 25-H, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act - The court discussed the dispute arising from the employment relationship between the petitioner and the respondents, the interpretation of relevant sections of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in resolving the dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint contending that he was not absorbed in government service despite being eligible, and was appointed in a Sports Academy under a stop-gap arrangement. The Labour Court allowed the complaint, directing reinstatement with backwages. The Industrial Court, in a revision filed by the respondents, found that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The Industrial Court found that the Labour Court's decision was based on a misreading of documents and that the dispute of the employment relationship was beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The court also considered the petitioner's failure to establish a direct employer-employee relationship with the respondents.
Issues: The issues revolved around the employment relationship between the petitioner and the respondents, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, and the interpretation of relevant sections of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Labour Court's decision was based on a misreading of documents and that the dispute of the employment relationship was beyond its jurisdiction. It also found that there was no direct employer-employee relationship between the parties.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no order as to cost was made.
2. Respondent No.3 before this Court is the Principal of Sports Academy and was respondent No. 2 in ULPA Complaint. State Government took a decision to establish Sports Academy at each District place and in implementation of that decision, respondent No.2 Sports Academy was created at Amravati. As per the scheme, Director of Sports and Youth Service of State Government at Pune was to supervise and co-ordinate working of all District Sports Academies. The said Director was respondent No. 1 before the Labour Court and is respondent No.2 here. Industrial Court which has passed reversing order is respondent No.1 before this Court.
3. Petitioner filed ULPA Complaint No. 113/1997 on 20-10-1997 contending that he was earlier working with some other Government establishment and he had completed three years of apprentice ship services. Thereafter, though he became eligible, but he was not absorbed in government service. In this situation, he applied to Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati which appointed him in November, 1995. Though he was qualified to work as Stenographer and had experience also, he was given clerical duties and he worked there for about 9 months. In pursuance of policy decision taken to establish Sports Academy at each District Level. Sports Academy was accordingly established at Amravati within the premises of Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal itself. Respondent No. 2 Principal was in control and supervision of activity of respondent No.3. Petitioner as also some other employees working with Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal were orally asked for their option for working in said Sports Academy. The petitioner gave his option and accordingly on 13-7-1996 he started working with respondent No.2 as Stenographer. Because of his previous experience in government office, he was also entrusted with other office work and treasury matters. He also contended that after his services were absorbed in Sports Academy, he was paid meager honorarium and that too by Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal, Amravati. It was stop gap arrangement and after sanction of funds to Sports Academy at Amravati, Sports Academy was to repay the honorarium to Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal. He was accordingly paid Rs. 800/- per month. He further pointed out that the Director of Sports vide letter dated 15-101996 addressed to respondent No. 2 informed that petitioner was appointed in Sports Academy as a Stenographer, and Principal of Sports Academy was directed to send his appointment order. He contended that he was sanctioned wages as Stenographer, but then the Principal asked him to take wages as that of clerk. He disclosed his willingness to accept that amount under protest, and as that was not accepted, he filed ULPA Complaint No. 537/1997 before the Industrial Court, claiming wages as Stenographer. In this background on 4-81997 a letter dated 1-8-1997 was issued and served upon him whereby his services were terminated immediately with retrospective effect. He contended that this was in violation of provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He contends that there was violation of section 25-H also.
4. His complaint was opposed by present respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who contended that petitioner was never recruited and was not in their service. They pointed out that he was taken on loan because of arrangement with Hanuman Vyayam Prasarak Mandal to start Sports Academy at Amravati. They point
