Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 1911
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Smt. Chandrakala – Petitioner
Versus
Marathwada Medical Research and Rural Development Institution Ltd – Respondent
WP No. 5634 of 2014 With WP No. 5635 of 2014 with WP No. 5640 of 2014
Decided on : 30.10.2015
Shri T.K. Prabhakaran a/w Shri Telangre G.S., Advocates for the Petitioners.
Shri Ashok Patil a/w Shri Joshi Arvind Ramakant, Advocates for Respondents
The Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain complaints alleging unfair labour practices where the employer-employee relationship is disputed.
Headnote:
JUDGEMENT - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners, who were working as Aaya and Ward Boys in the Respondent Hospital, filed complaints before the Industrial Court alleging that they were not deployed through any contractor and that the Respondent had claimed that they were working as contract labourers. The Respondent, on the other hand, contended that the Petitioners were engaged through two contractors and that the work of Aaya/Ward Boy was outsourced to a contractor under the Housekeeping Contract.
Finding of the Court:
The Industrial Court dismissed the complaints on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the same as the Respondent had taken a stand of 'no employer-employee relationship'. The Petitioners challenged the said order before the High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by the Petitioners? 2. Whether the Petitioners were deployed through contractors or were they direct employees of the Respondent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed by the Petitioners as the Respondent had taken a stand of 'no employer-employee relationship'. 2. The High Court further held that the Petitioners were not direct employees of the Respondent but were deployed through contractors.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the Petitions filed by the Petitioners.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. On 25.08.2015, this Court has passed the following order:
“1. The learned Advocates submit on instructions from their respective clients present in the Court that they have no objection if this Court hears these matters.
2. These matters have been heard for almost two hours.
3. Stand over to 07.09.2015 at 02:30 pm as PARTHEARD, at the request of the learned Advocates.”
3. The Petitioners in the first petition challenge the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Industrial Court at Aurangabad by which Complaint (ULP) No.47/2008 filed by the Petitioners was dismissed.
4. The Petitioners in the second petition are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad by which Complaint (ULP) No.97/2008 filed by these Petitioners has been dismissed.
5. The Petitioners in the third petition are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad by which Complaint (ULP) No.50/2008 filed by these Petitioners has been dismissed.
6. The Petitioners in these petitions are identically placed. They have preferred the above referred three identical complaints against the same Respondent as in these petitions and which have been dismissed by the Industrial Court vide it's common judgment dated 11.12.2013.
7. The extensive submissions of Shri Prabhakaran, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, can be summarized in brief as follows:
(a) All the lady Petitioners were working as “Aaya” and all the male Petitioners were working as “Ward Boys”.
(b) None of them were deployed through any contractor.
(c) No prayer is made by the Petitioners seeking repudiation of contract/ contractor.
(d) The Respondent through it's Written Statement has claimed that all these Petitioners were working as contract labourers.
(e) At no point in time, had any contractor deployed these Petitioners as contract labourers.
(f) The contention of the Respondent that the Petitioners were engaged through two contractors, namely, Shri Subhash Dhoot and Shri Premchand Kokate, is a false plea.
(g) The contention of the Respondent that the Petitioners were working in the cleaning/sweeping activity under the Housekeeping Contract, is a false plea.
(h) The contention of the Petitioners through their evidence that they were working as Aaya and Ward Boys has not been denied.
(i) The original identity cards signed by responsible officer of the Respondent were issued to the Petitioners.
(j) Though it was admitted by the Petitioners in cross-examination that they are not in employment since 2008, their claim in the complaints could not be negated on this count.
(k) Though it is admitted that an appointment order as an Aaya or Ward Boy was not issued to the Petitioners, their claim of having actually so worked cannot be negated.
(l) Though the attendance record produced at Exhibit U/38 does not bear the signature of any responsible officer of the Respondent, it would indicate that they were working on the same nature of activity as was being performed by the regular employees.
(m) Experience certificates were issued by the Respondent to the Petitioners.
(n) Separate list for making the payment of wages to the Petitioners was not maintained.
(o) The Management Witness admitted in his cross-examination that the contract labourers were doing similar work as was being done by the permanent employees.
(p) The Industrial Court has erroneously dismissed the complaints on the ground that it has no jurisdiction merely because the Respondent has taken a stand of 'no employer-employee relationship'.
(q) The work of Aaya/Ward Boy was never contracted by the Respondent and the defence taken in the Written Statement was only intended to oust the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court.
(r) There is no dispute about the nature of work done by the Petitioners which was similar to the work done by the regular employees.
(s) There i
