Bombay High Court
Ramesh Laxman Dhanwai vs The Management M/S Endurance ... on 3 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:5640
1 of 12 Sr. Nos.111-115 & ors. matters-J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
111 WRIT PETITION NO. 4159 OF 2020
Gajanan Annabhau Tupe ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Management,
M/s. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. K-228/229, MIDC, Waluj,
Aurangabad.
2. Tiger HR Solution Pvt. Ltd.
171, Sonchapha, Tilak Nagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
...
Mr. Manoj D. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashok A. More, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Yugant Ramchandra Marlapalle, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
AND
112 WRIT PETITION NO. 4195 OF 2020
Suresh Baburao Gaike ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Management,
M/s. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. K-228/229, MIDC, Waluj,
Aurangabad.
2. Tiger HR Solution Pvt. Ltd.
171, Sonchapha, Tilak Nagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
...
Mr. Manoj D. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashok A. More, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Yugant Ramchandra Marlapalle, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
AND
113 WRIT PETITION NO. 4196 OF 2020
Ramesh Laxman Dhanwai ... Petitioner
2 of 12 Sr. Nos.111-115 & ors. matters-J
Versus
1. The Management,
M/s. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. K-228/229, MIDC, Waluj,
Aurangabad.
2. Tiger HR Solution Pvt. Ltd.
171, Sonchapha, Tilak Nagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
...
Mr. Manoj D. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashok A. More, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Yugant Ramchandra Marlapalle, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
AND
114 WRIT PETITION NO. 4197 OF 2020
Amol Janardhan Ingale ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Management,
M/s. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. K-228/229, MIDC, Waluj,
Aurangabad.
2. Tiger HR Solution Pvt. Ltd.
171, Sonchapha, Tilak Nagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
...
Mr. Manoj D. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashok A. More, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Yugant Ramchandra Marlapalle, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
AND
115 WRIT PETITION NO. 4198 OF 2020
Manoj Anandrao Lute ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Management,
M/s. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. K-228/229, MIDC, Waluj,
Aurangabad.
3 of 12 Sr. Nos.111-115 & ors. matters-J
2. Kamlesh Enterprises,
Through Ankush Kalwane,
At post: Ghanegaon, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist.: Aurangabad ... Respondents.
...
Mr. Manoj D. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashok A. More, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Yugant Ramchandra Marlapalle, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
AND
NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD
WRIT PETITION NO.4175 OF 2020
Chandrakant Nagnath Kanshette ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Management,
M/s. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. K-228/229, MIDC, Waluj,
Aurangabad.
2. Kamlesh Enterprises,
Through Ankush Kalwane,
At post: Ghanegaon, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist.: Aurangabad ... Respondents.
...
Mr. Manoj D. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashok A. More, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Yugant Ramchandra Marlapalle, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
AND
NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD
WRIT PETITION NO.4200 OF 2020
Ganesh Dnyaneshwar Patil ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Management,
M/s. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. K-228/229, MIDC, Waluj,
Aurangabad.
2. Tiger HR Solution Pvt. Ltd.
171, Sonchapha, Tilak Nagar,
4 of 12 Sr. Nos.111-115 & ors. matters-J
Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
...
Mr. Manoj D. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashok A. More, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Yugant Ramchandra Marlapalle, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
AND
NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD
WRIT PETITION NO.4145 OF 2020
Kishor Bhanudas Tathe ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Management,
M/s. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. K-228/229, MIDC, Waluj,
Aurangabad.
2. Tiger HR Solution Pvt. Ltd.
171, Sonchapha, Tilak Nagar,
Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
...
Mr. Manoj D. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashok A. More, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Yugant Ramchandra Marlapalle, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
AND
NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD
WRIT PETITION NO.4199 OF 2020
Umesh Manikrao Phalphale ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Management,
M/s. Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. K-228/229, MIDC, Waluj,
Aurangabad.
2. Kamlesh Enterprises,
Through Ankush Kalwane,
At post: Ghanegaon, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist.: Aurangabad ... Respondents.
...
Mr. Manoj D. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
5 of 12 Sr. Nos.111-115 & ors. matters-J
Mr. Ashok A. More, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Yugant Ramchandra Marlapalle, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATED : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
3. In all these petitions, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Aurangabad, in Reference I.D. Nos.21 of 2009 (order dated 03.10.2018), 19 of 2009 (03.10.2018), 16 of 2009 (03.10.2018), 24 of 2009 (04.10.2018), 22 of 2009 (04.10.2018), 17 of 2009 (04.10.2018), 15 of 2009 (03.10.2018), 23 of 2009 (03.10.2018) and 18 of 2009 (04.10.2018), whereby the references came to be answered in the negative.
4. Mr. Manoj Shinde, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners were appointed by the employer, i.e., Respondent No.1.
5. The facts in a nutshell are that Respondent No.1-Company is registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is 6 of 12 Sr. Nos.111-115 & ors. matters-J contended by the Petitioners that they were appointed as operators with Respondent No.1. On 20.10.2008, without assigning any reasons in writing, Respondent No.1 orally restrained the Petitioners from performing their duties. Consequently, the Petitioners raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer and the Conciliation Authority referred the said dispute to the learned Labour Court.
6. The Petitioners as well as the Respondents filed their statements of claim and written statements respectively and led evidence before the learned Labour Court. Upon considering the evidence led by the parties, the learned Labour Court rejected the references. Being aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners have approached this Court. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that Respondent No.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its manufacturing unit situated at Plot No.K-228/229, MIDC, Waluj, Aurangabad. Respondent No.1 is engaged in the automobile industry and its products are dependent upon manufacturers of two-wheeler vehicles. Respondent No.1 has engaged about 151 workmen, who were directly employed for production purposes and the Factory Manager had appointed the Petitioners.
7. He further submits that Respondent No.1 is an "industry" and 7 of 12 Sr. Nos.111-115 & ors. matters-J the Petitioners are "workmen" within the meaning of Sections 2(j) and 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The service conditions of the employees are governed by the Model Standing Orders framed under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Respondent No.1 offered employment to the Petitioners as operators on CNC machines for grinding and drilling work in the Fork Pipe Shop and the Petitioners joined service as operators w.e.f. 12.06.2005. It is submitted that on 20.10.2008, when the Petitioners reported for duty, the security guard prevented them from entering the factory premises on the instructions of the HR Department, thereby orally terminating their services. Consequently, the Petitioners raised a demand under the Industrial Disputes Act before the Conciliation Officer, Aurangabad, who referred the dispute to the learned Labour Court, Aurangabad.
8. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners were appointed directly by Respondent No.1 and that only their salary and other benefits were disbursed through Respondent No.2-Contractor. In support of this contention, it is submitted that no agreement was placed on record before the learned Labour Court to establish that Respondent No.2 was appointed as a contractor and that the services of the Petitioners were engaged through Respondent No.2. 8 of 12 Sr. Nos.111-115 & ors. matters-J
9. He further submits that before the learned Labour Court, the Petitioners had established that they were appointed by Respondent No.1 and that Respondent No.2 merely acted as a conduit for payment of salary and other benefits. It is contended that such an arrangement was created only to deny the Petitioners permanency and other service benefits, which aspect was not properly considered by the learned Labour Court. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate relied upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.12349 of 2021, Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Taj Vivanta (erstwhile Hotel Taj Residency), Plot No.8, N-12, CIDCO, Jalgaon Road, Aurangabad vs. Ramesh Bhausaheb Tathe & Ors., and invited my attention to paragraph No.18 thereof, which reads thus:-
18. The learned advocate for the respondents relies upon the judgment in the case of Hussainbhai Calicut Vs Alath Factory Thezhilali Union. In the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the relationship of the employer and employee. It is held that absence of direct relationship or the presence of dubious intermediaries cannot snap the real life bond. It is held that liability of the employer cannot be shaken off. In the judgment of the Secretary HSEB Vs Suresh also question of relationship was considered. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered that the purpose of the social and beneficial piece of legislation. In the case of Dina Nath Vs National Fertilizers Ltd it was held that the contractor was a mere name lender and it procure the labour from the open market. The contractor in that case was held to be broker or agent of the employer.
10. He further submits that the law laid down by this Court in the above referred judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said matter, the employees were appointed directly 9 of 12 Sr. Nos.111-115 & ors. matters-J by the employer and only the salary was routed through the contractor. The complaints filed by the employees were allowed and the petitions preferred by the employer were dismissed by this Court, thereby confirming the orders passed by the learned Labour Court. Hence, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment squarely applies to the present case.
11. Per contra, Mr. Ashok More, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 submits that the Petitioners were not appointed directly by Respondent No.1. It is submitted that the Petitioners were appointed through a contractor and that there exists no employer- employee relationship between the Petitioners and Respondent No.1. He further submits that the burden to establish direct employment lies upon the Petitioners and that they have failed to discharge the said burden. Therefore, he supports the orders passed by the learned Labour Court.
12. Mr. Yugant Marlapalle, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.2 submits that there is no employer-employee relationship between the Petitioners and Respondent No.1. He submits that the Petitioners were appointed through Respondent No.2 and that their salary and other service benefits were paid by Respondent No.2. He further submits that the judgment relied upon by the Petitioners has 10 of 12 Sr. Nos.111-115 & ors. matters-J been challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and part of the said judgment has been stayed. It is submitted that the facts of the said case are entirely different. In that matter, there was a specific contention by the employer that initially the employees were appointed directly and subsequently their services were sought to be routed through the contractor. Hence, he submits that the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
13. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident from paragraph No.30 of the order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court that although the Petitioners led evidence and cross-examined the witnesses, they admitted that there was no documentary evidence to show that Respondent No.1 had offered them employment as operators.
14. The Petitioners further admitted that there was no documentary evidence to show that Respondent No.1 terminated their services with effect from 20.10.2008. They also failed to establish that they received monthly wages from Respondent No.1. The learned Labour Court recorded findings to that effect in paragraph No.14 of its order, which reads thus:-
"14. This admissions given by the second party goes to the root of the case and shows that he was the employee of the first party 11 of 12 Sr. Nos.111-115 & ors. matters-J no.2. He has no any evidence to show that his work was controlled and supervised by the first party no.1. To one suggestion he stated that he cannot tell that on what basis first party no. 2 is sham and bogus. This itself shows that from the beginning, he has knowledge that he was employee of first party no. 2."
15. Further, upon considering the evidence led by the parties, the learned Labour Court recorded its findings in paragraph Nos.21, 23, 24, 25 and 27. After scrutinizing the entire evidence on record, the learned Labour Court also recorded specific findings in paragraph No. 13 of the impugned order, which reads thus:-
"13. He further deposes that on 20/10/2008 in the morning shift, the Security Guard did not allow to him to enter into the company and he told that the H.R. Office instructed him not to allow him in the company as his service is terminated.
In cross examination, he admitted that he has no any evidence to show that first party no.1 offered him job as an Operator and he accepted the offer and joined from 12/06/2005. He has not made any complaint against first party no. 1 that first party no.1 had taken his signature on blank papers and forms. He further admitted that he has no any documentary evidence that first party no.1 terminated his service from 20/10/2008. He got monthly wages in presence of the company officer. He specifically admitted that he has no documentary evidence to show that daily work was provided to him by Shri. Shirsat. Tilwankar, Nandedkar Gaikwad, Rathol and Patel. He specifically admitted that he was 'employee' of the first party no.2."
16. Upon considering the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, I find that the learned Labour Court has not committed any error in answering the references in the negative. In particular, the Petitioners have failed to establish that they were appointed by Respondent No.1. On the contrary, the evidence led by the Petitioners 12 of 12 Sr. Nos.111-115 & ors. matters-J themselves clearly demonstrates that they were engaged through Respondent No.2-Contractor and that their salary as well as statutory benefits, including provident fund and other applicable benefits were paid by Respondent No.2. In view thereof, no case for interference with the impugned orders passed by the learned Labour Court is made out.
17. Hence, the present petitions are dismissed and the rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef