Point of Law: for a complaint to be maintainable under the MRTU and PULP Act, admitted employer and employee relationship is a pre-condition. The provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act can be enforced only after the status of a workman is established before an appropriate forum.

JUDGMENT :

N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

1. Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

Respondent No. 17, being the Industrial Court, is not a necessary party and stands deleted.

3. This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India raises the following questions.

Whether a complaint of contractual employees seeking to exercise their rights, as provided under the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and Bombay Industrial Relations Rules, 1947, is maintainable under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971?

Whether contractual employees can file a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 for challenging the impugned order, which is not passed by the Principal Employer?

4. Factual Matrix: The Petitioner-Original Respondent is a Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having an establishment at M.I.D.C. Industrial Area, Hingna Road, Nagpur, wherein the manufacturing activity and sale of tractors and its components is undertaken. The establishment of the Petitioner is governed by the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short “the MIR Act”). There are 806 permanent employees working in this establishment. The Petitioner’s permanent employees work in core production areas. The Petitioner has outsourced its peripheral activities to several contractors and for that purpose, the Petitioner registered itself as the principal employer under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short “the Act of 1970”). The Contractors of the Petitioner have obtained license under Section 13 of the Act of 1970. There is no registered Trade Union in the local area of the Petitioner establishment.

The Labour Officer, who is an authority under Section 6 of the MIR Act, conducts the elections under Section 28 of the MIR Act for electing five representatives of the employees. The elections are held at the interval of every two years. Prior to the year 2007, alongwith the permanent employees of the Petitioner, the employees of the contractors used to take part in the elections held under Section 28 of the MIR Act. Thereafter, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sunfag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2008 (3) CLR 983, the names of the employees engaged through the contractors were not included in the subsequent elections from the year 2009 onwards.

5. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 - Original Complainants are contractual workers working in the Petitioner establishment. On 26.06.2019, the Respondent No. 16-Government Labour Officer declared the election programme for conducting elections under Section 28 of the MIR Act, for electing five representatives of the employees. On 27.06.2019, the list of the workers was to be published on the notice board and on 28.06.2019, the objections, if any, to the said list were to be submitted in writing. On 29.06.2019, the objections were to be considered. The voting was scheduled on 06.07.2019. A representation dated 22.06.2019 was submitted to the Management by 301 workers working on contract basis to add their names in the voters list and to give them a right to vote. The Management informed the contractual workers that the decision in that regard cannot be taken by the Management and they may approach the Government Labour Officer or the Labour Commissioner. On 27.06.2019, some contractual workers submitted representation to the Labour Commissioner, Nagpur seeking inclusion of their names in the voters list. On 28.06.2019, the Labour Officer-cum-Returning Officer rejected the objection of the contractual workers stating that in view of the decision of the Division Benc