1. Heard Mr. S.N. Bhattad, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.C. Naukarkar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner has challenged the Award, dt.11.8.2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur in Complaint (ULPN) No.203 of 2005 whereby the respondent (Original Complainant) was ordered to be given work with effect from 11.8.2006 after declaring termination of the respondent from service as unlawful. Consequential relief that she shall not be forced to work under any other Contractor was also granted.

3. Sometimes in the year 2000, the petitioner had decided to recruit the workers for class III and class IV category of employees. According to the petitioner, the work was not of regular or permanent nature, but as per need of the hospital. The respondent had joined the service with the petitioner as a Sweeper in the hospital on 14.1.2000. The respondent had joined as a Sweeper, but her service was discontinued by coercing her to work under another Contractor while obtaining her signature upon a blank paper. Thus, complaint of unfair labour practice was filed under Item No. 9 of the schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The complainant was seeking declaration/adjudication and prayer was for issuing direction to the employer to desist from such unfair labour practice breaching the service condition falling within mischief of Item No. 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The unfair labour practice was held as proved. The petitioner, it is found, that had withheld wages since March 2005.

4. The submission is that, in the dispute between the employer and the employee, the Industrial Court cannot go into merits unless the employer gets the industrial dispute adjudicated. Mr. S.N. Bhattad, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that preliminary objection was raised about relationship of the employer and the employee. It is argued that if the employee was working under the contract covered by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, then the Labour Court or the Industrial Court as adjudicating Authorities cannot have jurisdiction to deal with the matter as it falls within the province of an appropriate Government to abolish the same. Unless the employee establishes the fact that the she is an employee under the employer under the Industrial Dispute Act, the complaint would not be maintainable. Reliance is placed upon the following rulings:-

A. Cipla Ltd. vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union & Ors., 2001 I CLR 754. In para 7, it is observed thus :

“7. But one thing is clear if the employees are working under a Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act then it is clear that the Labour Court or the industrial adjudicating authorities cannot have any jurisdiction to deal with the matter as it falls within the province of 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 aspects, enforcing provisions relating to unfair labour practices. If that is so, unless it is undisputed or indisputable that there is employeremployee relationship between the parties, the question of unfair practice cannot be inquired into at all”.

B. Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steel Ltd. & another reported in 2001 I CLR 532, wherein it is observed thus:-

“6. Faced with this situation it was submitted that the Respondent Company had always recognised the members of the Appellant Union to be their own workmen. It is submitted that a formal denial was taken only to defeat the claim. We see no substance in this submission. In the written statement it