The main legal point established in the judgment is that the industrial court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute about the relationship of employer and employee in a complaint filed under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. Gaikwad, J.—Heard learned advocates for respective parties. With consent of parties, appeals are heard and finally decided at the stage of admission.

2. These appeals are directed against a common judgment in Writ Petitions No. 854/2003 and 925/2003 whereby the learned single Judge by his judgment dated March 6, 2007 allowed both the writ petitions and set aside the order passed by learned Industrial Court Jalgaon in Complaint ULP No. 482/1999. In the original complaint, the press is respondent No. 1 and the newspaper is respondent No. 2. Hence in the judgment we are going to refer the press and paper as respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 respectively, although they are recited in different order in the two appeals.

3. The appellant Union filed Complaint u/s 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 in industrial Court at Nasik alleging unfair labour practices. The Complaint came to be filed through one S.N. Patil, General Secretary of the complainant Union. The unfair labour practice alleged was under Item 9 of Schedule IV. Respondents 1 and 2 in the complaint are alleged to be different divisions of one establishment. The complainant union is a registered union bearing Registration No. 4672 dated April 8, 1964 and is having connection with the affairs of the respondents. The respondent establishment publishes news paper Janashakti. It was being printed from respondent No. 1. The news paper Janashakti is owned by trust by name Daily Janashakti Trust. Respondent No. 2 looks after the entire work of this establishment. Respondent No. 2 is also a member of the complainant union and is responsible for the service matters of the employees (workers) in this establishment. As such it is alleged that respondents 1 and 2 are the two different divisions of one establishment.

4. The appellant union came with a case that the workers named in Schedule "B" with the complaint are employees of the respondent establishment and are the members of complainant union. The respondents practice unfair labour practice by not making payment as per law and refusing other benefits. The complainant union made efforts to resolve the dispute and secure benefits as per demands of the employees. The respondents are under obligation to make payment and give other benefits to the employees as per recommendations of Bacchavat commission. Complainant union by its representation dated March 29,1990 made request to pay the wages and other benefits to the employees as per recommendations of Bacchavat Commission. Instead of offering benefits, the respondent employer terminated services of five employees. Said termination is challenged in another proceeding. The union approached Assistant Commissioner of Labour for conciliation of the matter but no settlement took place, hence the union lodged the Complaint in industrial Court alleging unfair labour practice seeking direction to respondent to implement recommendations of Bacchavat Commission and give benefits to the employees since January 14, 1988.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared before industrial Court and contested the matter on the contentions raised in their written statements. Though separate written statements came to be filed, the contentions raised by them are similar. They have denied that they are engaged in unfair labour practice. As regards status of union objection was raised that the complaint filed by union is not maintainable as the union had no locus-standi to file the complaint. They have pleaded ignorance as to whether workers are the members of complainant union and whether they have given authority to the union to file the complaint. Both the respondents denied that they are part and parcel of one establishment. According to them, respondent No. 1 printing press is a partnership firm registered under Partnership Act and respondent No. 2 is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and are different entities. On