Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Jalinder Ranganath Lahare - Petitioners
Versus
Indian Seamless & Metal Tubes Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Petition No.2805 OF 2002, Writ Petition No.1087 OF 2003
Decided on : 18/02/2016
Advocate Appeared:
Mr.Pradip Shahane, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.V.N.Upadhye, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Petition is dismissed as against respondent No.2.
Important Point – Mere denial of employer-employee relationship in written statement is not enough to oust jurisdiction of Labour Court or Industrial Court.
Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10 – Reference – Mere denial of employer-employee relationship in written statement is not enough to oust jurisdiction of Labour Court or Industrial Court – There must be some documents on record to support plea taken in written statement – Labour or Industrial Court cannot dismiss a complaint merely because employer has denied relationship – If, on a bare reading of complaint, Industrial Court or Labour Court is satisfied that it has no jurisdiction to decide complaint as there is no undisputed or indisputable employer-employee relationship, occasion for framing an issue on that count would not arise – If Industrial Court or Labour Court is satisfied that there is no undisputed or indisputable employer/employee relationship, it cannot assume jurisdiction to entertain complaint and complaint will have to be dismissed as not maintainable.
Result – Writ Petitions Partly allowed.
1. These petitions were admitted by this Court on 16/06/2008 and 11/02/2004 respectively and the hearing of these petitions was expedited.
2. I have heard Mr.Shahane, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr.Upadhye, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent / Management for quite some time. Both the learned Advocates have taken me through the minute details of their pleadings before the Industrial Court and the material available. Considering the order that I would be passing hereunder, I am not adverting to their entire submissions since it would result in making certain observations on the merits of the matter, when I am inclined to remand Complaint ULP No.35/1999 and 46/1999 to the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar.
3. The undisputed facts before this Court are as under :
[a] The petitioners were performing work in the respondent / premises at the time of the filing of Complaint (ULP) No.35/1999 and 46/1999.
[b] The petitioners contended in the complaint that they have been working with the respondent No.1/Management.
[c] Respondent No.2 is a Labour Contractor, which is a camouflage at the behest of the Management for preventing a claim for regularization.
[d] Respondent No.1 / Management has categorically stated in the written statement that none of these petitioners were employed by it and there is no employeremployee relationship.
[e] After the written statements were filed by the respondent/Management as well as the Contractor, issues were cast.
[f] The Industrial Court held that all issues can be determined together.
[g] The recording of oral and documentary evidence on the part of the petitioners / complainants was complete.
[h] Before commencing the recording of evidence of the Management, an application Exh.C24 and C18 were filed praying for the dismissal of the complaints in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vividh Kamgar Sabha Vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd., and another, 2001(1) CLR 532 and Cipla Limited Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and others, 2001(1) CLR 754.
[i] The petitioners opposed the applications on the ground that since the issues have been framed and recording of evidence is completed to the extent of the complainants, the evidence of the Management be recorded and the complaint be decided.
[j] However, the Industrial Court, by its order dated 05/11/2001, has dismissed the two complaints on the basis of the averments made by the respondent No.1/Management and the Contractor.
[k} It was concluded that since the Management has denied employer-employee relationship and as there is a settlement between the Management and the recognized Union to absorb the contract labourers as per the list annexed to the settlement, the Industrial Court would not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.
4. Mr.Shahane, learned Advocate for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments :
1. Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S.Ltd., Vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma Dead by LR's and others, [2011 STPL (Web) 751 SC
[2. Akhil Bhartiya Shramik Kamgar Union Vs.Buildtech Constructions and others, [2004 (II) CLR 179],
3. Lokmat Vs. Dnyaneshwar Haribhai Kadu and others, [2002 (93) FLR 538],
4. Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling S/W Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and Others, [2001(III) CLR 1025]
5. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., Vs. Anant Narhari Sonar, [2013(6) LJ Soft 390].
5. Contention is that the Industrial Court could not have passed the impugned order dated 05/11/2001 when the trial of the case had commenced and the recording of oral evidence of the complainants had concluded. A preliminary point as to whether the complaint is maintainable was already cast and the parties were directed to lead evidence on all the issues.
6. The Industrial Court has dismissed the complaint without there being any evidence led by the respondent / Management to establish that there was a Contractor and the petitioners were contract labourers from the date of their first deployment. In a situation wherein e
