Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared before industrial Court and contested the matter on the contentions raised in their written statements. Though separate written statements came to be filed, the contentions raised by them are similar. They have denied that they are engaged in unfair labour practice. As regards status of union objection was raised that the complaint filed by union is not maintainable as the union had no locus-standi to file the complaint. They have pleaded ignorance as to whether workers are the members of complainant union and whether they have given authority to the union to file the complaint. Both the respondents denied that they are part and parcel of one establishment. According to them, respondent No. 1 printing press is a partnership firm registered under Partnership Act and respondent No. 2 is a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and are different entities. One complaint against them is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of misjoinder of parties. One more contention has also been raised that Bacchavat Commission Report is not applicable to respondent No. 1, so there is no question of payment to the workers as per the said recommendations. The main contention raised by respondent is that the industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. According to them, as there is dispute about employer and employee relationship, unless the Industrial Tribunal decides the dispute under Industrial Disputes Act, the industrial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. Respondent No. 2 raised specific contention that the workers for whom the union claimed to have authority to file the complaint were not the workers employed by respondent No. 2.

12. The learned single Judge was pleased to allow both the writ petitions and set aside the order of the industrial Court on the ground that there exists a dispute about relationship of employer and employee. Hence it was not within the jurisdiction of industrial Court under MRTU and PULP Act to enquire into the question as to whether the members of complainant union were employees of the said trust or not. The appropriate remedy was to file a proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been specifically observed by the learned single Judge that the Writ Petitions are allowed only on the issue of jurisdiction and there is liberty to the employees to raise their grievance before the appropriate forum. This finding being challenged on behalf of the appellants, it has to be seen as to whether there exists a dispute about the relationship and thereafter the next question for consideration is as to whether industrial Court was having jurisdiction to investigate and record finding on that issue while dealing with a complaint under Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act. To find out as to whether there was a dispute or not, pleadings of the parties need to be perused. A copy of the complaint filed before the industrial Court is on record at page Nos. 17 to 21 of the paper book. It has been pleaded that the workers enlisted in the Schedule are the members of the union. As regards the relationship with the respondents, it has been pleaded in paragraph No. B of the complaint that daily news paper Janashakti is owned by trust respondent No. 2. Printing work of the said paper was being carried out by respondent No. 1. It has been pleaded that the work of the said paper was being carried out through members of the union and the payment/salary/wages were paid by respondent No. 2. As regards status of respondent No. 1 pleading is specific that respondent No. 1 is one of the branches of respondent No. 2. By this pleading complainant union alleged that workers are the employees of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 fifed its written statement before industrial Court. In paragraph No. 4 of the written statement of respondent No. 2 there: is specific and clear denial of the relationship. It has been denied that the workers enlisted in the Schedule were employed at any time by respondent No. 2 or the union made any charter of demand to respondent No. 2. It has also been specifically contended that respondent No. 2 is having no employer employee relationship with the workers for which the complaint has been made. So respondent No. 2 specifically denied the relationship of employer and employee. The union who lodged complaint nowhere pleaded that the members of the union were employed by respondent No. 1. So from this pleading it is established that there exists a dispute about the relationship as employer and employee.

15. In the case of Maharashtra Engineering Plastic and General Kamgar Union, another Division Bench of this Court, held that in a complaint of unfair labour practice filed under Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act, in view of the decision of Apex Court in the cases of Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. KalyaniSteels Ltd. and Anr. (supra) and Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors. (supra), the issue of relationship of employer and workmen cannot be investigated. In the case of Indian Seamless Metal Tubes also in another writ petition, single Judge of this, Court held that where the status of employer and employee relationship is disputed the complaint of unfair labour practice is not maintainable and industrial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It has been observed by the learned single Judge that in such cases, parties are not left without remedy but they can seek the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act on the issue of existence of employer and employee relationship. In the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. supra, this Court held that complaint filed by Union and the employees are not maintainable as employer employee relationship is disputed and the industrial Court has therefore, no jurisdiction to try these complaints. In the case of Vividh Kamgar Sabha (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court held that if there is a dispute as to whether the employees are the employees of a company, then that dispute must first be got resolved by raising a dispute before the appropriate forum. It is only after relations as workmen is established before an appropriate forum, then complaint can be made under the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act.

18. The judgment of learned single Judge allowing both the writ petitions and setting aside order of industrial Court is perfectly justified in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred to above, hence the same calls for no interference.

19. On behalf of the respondents, while challenging the maintainability of complaint by the union, contention has been raised that unless the union is connected with the industry, the union cannot file the complaint on behalf of the workers. Complaint under Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act for unfair labour practice can be filed by union or by any employee. The learned single judge in his judgment did not consider this aspect but made it clear that only on the point of jurisdiction, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents now contended that respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm and respondent No. 2 is a trust and as such they are distinct and separate entities. On the other hand, appellant union come with a case that it is a one entity. So there is a dispute as to whether respondents 1 and 2 constitute one establishment or whether they are distinct and separate entities. There is also a dispute as to whether the members of alleged complainant union are the workers engaged by respondent No. 1 or by 2. As discussed above in a complaint under Section 28 of MRTU & PULP Act, this question cannot be decided and the forum is the authority under the industrial Disputes Act. In view of these facts, it will not be proper to make any observations or record any findings on this issue as it may affect either of the parties, in case the union approaches Tribunal under Industrial Disputes Act to establish the said relations. In view of these facts, we abstain from recording any finding on this issue.