The Industrial Court under the ULP Act, 1971 has no jurisdiction to abolish the contract system and treat the security guards as direct employees of the company.

JUDGMENT :

Kapadia, J

1. Being aggrieved by the summary rejection of Writ Petition No. 2523 of 1989 by the learned Single Judge vide order dated November 6, 1989, the present appeal has been filed by the petitioners.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly, are as follows :

(a) In March 1987, one Suraksha Rakshak & General Kamagar Sena (hereinafter referred to as the said Sena) filed Complaint (ULP) No. 350 of 1987 under item 5 and item 9 of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. By the said complaint, the Sena alleged that prior to February 1987, respondent No. 2-Company had engaged about 27 security guards. According to the said complaint, the guards were engaged by respondent No. 2-Company during the period 1980 to 1984. According to the complaint, in February/March 1987, without any prior notice, the said security guards are removed. In the circumstances, the above complaint was filed. The complaint proceeded to allege that the company was guilty of unfair labour practices under items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV to the Act which reads as follows :

"5. To show favouritism or partiality to one set of workers, regardless of merits.

9. Failure to implement award, settlement or agreement".

It was alleged that the 29 security guards were shown to be contract labour on the record of respondent No. 2-company; that this was a imbalance of labour contract; that the security agencies i.e. respondent No. 3 had not obtained the requisite licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1971; and as a result, the said security guards were the direct and regular employees of respondent No. 2-company. It was further submitted that the respondent No. 2-company had not registered itself with the Security Guards Boards for Greater Bombay and Thane Districts under the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 and in the circumstances, the said concerned workmen must be considered to be direct and regular employees of respondent No. 2-company. It was further contended that in any event, there was disparity in the service conditions of regular security guards vis-a-vis the 29 security guards employed through respondent No. 3 and, therefore, there was a violation of the provisions of the Security Guards Act, 1981.

(b) To the said complaint, the respondent No. 2-company filed their say. The second respondents, by their written statement, stated that at no point of time, there was employer and employee relationship and that the respondent No. 2-company had no supervision or control over the security guards who were employed by respondent No. 3-agency with whom respondent No. 2-company had entered into a contract on April 10, 1980 and in the circumstances, it was submitted that respondent No. 2-company was not guilty of unfair labour practices as alleged. It was further submitted that respondent No. 2-company was registered under the Contract Labour Act, 1971 and it was pursuant to the said registration that the above contract dated April 10, 1980 was entered into with respondent No. 3-agency and, therefore, there was no violation of the Contract Labour Act Respondent No. 2-company also denied that they had violated the provisions of the Security Guards Act, 1981.

(c) On the basis of the above pleadings, the Industrial Court by its impugned order dated September 1, 1989 came to the conclusion that the said 29 security guards were the employees of respondent No. 3-agency; that respondent No. 2-company was, therefore, not guilty of unfair labour practices as alleged; that there was no violation of the provisions of the Contract Labour Act, 1971 as the concerned employees were employed through the agency and as regards violation of Security Guards Act, 1981, the complaint was not maintainable under the ULP Act. 1971. Against the said order dated September 1, 1989 the present appellants who claim to be a representative. Union