Vividh
Kamgar Sabha Vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd. & Anr [2001] Insc 10 (9 January 2001)
S.N.Variava,
S.R.Babu
L.J
This
Appeal is against an Order passed by the Industrial Court on 20th
August, 1996. Briefly
stated the facts are as follows: The Appellants claim to be a Union representing the workmen of a Canteen run by the
Respondents. The Appellant Union claimed that even though the Appellants are
actually the employees of the Respondents, the Respondents are not treating
them at par with other employees and have notionally engaged contractors to run
the canteen. As the Respondents were not accepting the Appellants' claim to
treat them as their employees, the Appellant filed a Complaint under Section 28(1)
of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the MRTU & PULP Act) alleging that
the Respondents had engaged in unfair labour practices under Item Nos. 1, 1(a),
1(b), 4, 4(a) of Schedule II and Items 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of
the MRTU & PULP Act. This Complaint came to be dismissed by the impugned
Order dated 20th
August, 1996.
The
Appellant Union has filed an SLP directly in this Court against this Order as
the High Court of Bombay, in the case of Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sangathana
v. S. V. Naik reported in (1993) 1 CLR Page 1002, has already held that the
Industrial Court cannot in a complaint under MRTU & PULP Act abolish
contract labour and treat employees as direct employees of the company. At this
stage it must be mentioned that this Court has also in the case of Central Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay v. Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in
(1995) 2 LLJ 765, held that where the workmen have not been accepted by the
Company to be its employees, then no complaint would lie under the MRTU &
PULP Act. We are in full agreement with the above mentioned view. The
provisions of MRTU & PULP Act can only be enforced by persons who
admittedly are workmen.
If
there is dispute as to whether the employees are employees of the Company, then
that dispute must first be got resolved by raising a dispute before the
appropriate forum. It is only after the status as a workmen is established in
an appropriate Forum that a complaint could be made under the provisions of
MRTU & PULP Act. Faced with this situation it was submitted that the
Respondent Company had always recognised the members of the Appellant Union to
be their own workmen. It is submitted that a formal denial was taken only to
defeat the claim. We see no substance in this submission. In the written
statement it has been categorically denied that the members of the Appellant
Union were employees of the Respondent Company. The question has been agitated
before the Industrial
Court. The Industrial Court has given a finding, on facts, that
the members of the Appellant Union were not employees of the Respondent
Company. This is a disputed fact and thus till the Appellants or their members,
get the question decided in a proper forum, this complaint was not
maintainable.
Accordingly,
we dismiss this Appeal on the ground that the complaint was not maintainable.
We clarify that it is open for the Appellant or their members to raise dispute
in this behalf before an appropriate forum provided they are entitled to do so.
If they get a declaration to the effect that they are employees of the
Respondent Company, then it may be open to them to file such a complaint. It is
also clarified that if a dispute as to their status is raised in an appropriate
forum then the same will be decided on merits without taking into consideration
any observations made or finding given by the Industrial Court in the impugned Order.
Back