JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the petition is called out for final hearing.

2. Petitioners who are contract workmen, seek parity in wages on par with the wages paid to Mazdoor/Junior Mazdoor directly employed by the Principal Employer. Petition is filed by a nonrepresentative union of contract workmen, which is opposed to wage-agreement executed between representative union, contractors’ association and principal employer and claims higher wages than the one agreed under the agreement by invoking provisions of the Maharashtra Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971 and Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. The issue that arises for our consideration in the present petition is whether existence of an agreement with a representative union governing payment of wages to contractual employees, would preclude non-members of that union from claiming wages on par with directly employed workmen. Also arises is the issue about comparison of nature of work performed by the two categories of workmen.

3. Petitioners’ demand is rejected by the Additional Labour Commissioner (ALC) vide order dated 15.12.2014, which is challenged in the present petition. Two more communications dated 10.07.2014 and 14.08.2014 issued by the ALC prior to passing of the order dated 15.12.2014, refusing to adjudicate their demand, are also challenged by Petitioners.

4. A brief factual narration as a prologue to our judgment would be necessary. Petitioner no. 1 claims to be a union of contractual employees engaged by the erstwhile Reliance Infrastructure Ltd (respondent no. 2), which was engaged inter-alia in distribution of electricity in suburban areas of Mumbai city. During pendency of the present petition, the business of Respondent No. 2 company is taken over by M/s. Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd (respondent no. 5). Petitioners nos. 2 to 6 are members of Petitioner no. 1-Union and are employed through contractors by respondent no. 2/5 and thus are the affected workmen. It is claimed that respondents no. 2 had been engaging around contract 5,000 workers for carrying out activities of excavation, laying, jointing of new cables; installation and replacement of street light poles; detection, excavation and repairing of underground cable fault; transformer replacement and maintenance, work in meter testing department etc. That respondents no. 2/5 has been showing such employees as engaged through contractors. That such an arrangement is made with a view to hide the true master-servant relationship and that separate proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (BIR Act, 1946) in that regard.

5. Respondent no. 3-Bombay Electric Workers Union is a representative-Union of employees engaged by respondent no. 2/5 under the provisions of the BIR Act, 1946. Respondent No. 4 is the Association of contractors, who provide contractual employees to Respondent No. 2/5. An agreement dated 01.04.2010 was executed by respondents no. 2/5 with respondent no. 3-Union, under which the lowest unskilled category of permanent workmen were subdivided into categories of ‘Mazdoor’ and ‘Junior Mazdoor’ and around 800 contract workers were made permanent as Junior Mazdoor. It is claimed that all the employees engaged as Mazdoor/Junior Mazdoor and contract workmen perform identical work of unskilled category.

6. Petitioner no. 1-Union raised a demand vide letter dated 27.07.2010 for same wages and benefits as paid to permanent workers under the settlement agreement dated 1.04.2010. By another letter dated 03.01.2012, Petitioner no. 1-Union requested the ALC to interfere in the matter. On 28.06.2012, a tripartite agreement was executed between respondents no. 2/5, respondent no. 3-Union and respondent no. 4-Association, under which it was inter-alia agreed that contract workmen would be paid daily wages of Rs. 368/-. Petitio