The Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain complaints of unfair labor practices unless an undisputed employer-employee relationship is established.

JUDGMENT :

1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, the Petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2) The Petition raises the usual issue of jurisdiction of Industrial Court to decide Complaint of unfair labour practices filed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) when existence of employer-employee relationship is under dispute. In the present case, the Complaint is filed on behalf of canteen employees working in the canteen established by Petitioner- Company seeking a declaration that they are permanent employees of the Petitioner-Company and are entitled to receive same service benefits as are extended to the permanent employees. Petitioner- Company raised objection by filing application at Exhibit-C3 to jurisdiction of Industrial Court to decide the Complaint and prayed for framing of preliminary issue about maintainability of Complaint and sought its dismissal. Petitioner-Company also sought vacation of interim order dated 29 November 2019. By impugned order dated 1 October 2021, the Industrial Court has rejected Petitioner-Company’s application and has directed continuation of interim relief till further orders. Aggrieved by Industrial Court’s order dated 1 October 2021, Petitioner has filed the present Petition.

3) Petitioner is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel wires and has a factory at Tarapur Industrial Area, Boisar, District Palghar. Earlier, manufacturing facility was maintained by Petitioner-Company at Borivali, Mumbai which was relocated at Boisar in the year 2009. Petitioner-Company has 350 permanent employees working at the factory, who are represented by recognized union viz. Shramik Utkarsh Sabha. Additionally, Petitioner-Company also has 29 employees working in staff, supervisory and officer category outside the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since Petitioner-Company is employer of more than 250 employees, it is required to maintain a statutory canteen under provisions of section 46 of the Factories Act. It is Petitioner-Company’s case, however that running of canteen or doing catering service is not its business and that the statutory canteen is required to be maintained only towards obligations under the Factories Act. According to the Petitioner-Company, it has engaged M/s. Sonali Caterers-Respondent No.2 to run the canteen through its own staff and has accordingly executed various agreements/contracts. The last agreement/contract is signed with Respondent No.2 on 28 March 2018 which was valid upto 31 December 2020.

4) Respondent No.1 is a Union representing 26 workers working in the canteen maintained by Petitioner-Company. According to Respondent No.1-Union, said 26 workers are working in the canteen from various dates as more particularly detailed in Annexure-A to the Complaint. It is thus claimed by Respondent No.1-Union that some of the workers are working in the canteen since the year 2010. Respondent No.1-Union filed Complaint (ULP) No.215 of 2019 in Industrial Court, Thane, seeking a declaration that the said 26 workers are permanent employees of Petitioner-Company and claimed the benefit of permanency to them from the dates of completion of 240 days of service. The Respondent No.1-Union also filed application at Exhibit-U2 for grant of interim relief. An ad interim order came to be passed by Industrial Court on 29 November 2019 directing the Petitioner-Company to maintain status quo in respect of service conditions of 26 workers. After receipt of notice in the Complaint, Petitioner-Company appeared and filed objection to the maintainability of the Complaint. Petitioner-Company contended that there is no employer-employee relationship between it and the said 26 workers and that therefore Industrial Court did not have jurisdiction to t ry and entertain the Complaint. Variou