LexCIPLA LTD. versus MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
y ·'•-·.: CIPLALTD. v. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION AND ORS. FEBRUARY21, 2001 [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] Labour Laws : Mahara,htra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair La- bour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28-Unfair labour practices-Labourcourt- ]urisdiction of-Complaint-Maintainability of-Employer-employee reiation- ship-Necessily of-Company employed workmen ihrough conlraclor for clean- ing factory premises-Services of such workmen used to be lerminaied after 11 months !hereby depriving 1hem of permanent slatus-Company never /reated such workmen as its employees-Complaint filed by such workmen alleging unfair labour practices-Labour court dismissed the complaint by holding that arrangement between company and contractor was legal and bona fide and that abolition of contract labour could be agitated only under Contract Labour Act and not under MRTU & PULP Act-Industrial court affirmed this deci- sion-But High Court held complaint to be maintainable-Correctness of- Held : Only the appropriate Government has the power to abolish contract iabour system-Labour cou11 or Industrial court conslituted under MR11J & PULP Ac! has no jurisdiction to ente11ain such disputes-In the absence ~f employer-employee relationship labour court or industrial court cannot go into the question of Ufl:fair labour practices-Hence, complaint not maintainahle- Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970--Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946-Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Sch. M. Industrial Disputes Act, I947: A B c D E F Section 32-Labour Court-Jurisdiction under--Scupe and ambit uf- Held : S. 32 does not enlarge jurisdiction beyond what is conferred upon G labour court by other provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products and it was its statutory duty to keep the factory premises clean, hygienic and dust free in terms of Schedule 'M' of the Drugs and Cosme!- I H A B 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R. ics Act, 1940. The appellant, therefore employed workmen through a contractor for carrying out such cleaning operations. However, the appel- lant through the contractor used to terminate the services of these work- men after 11 months of service thereby depriving them of the status of I • permanent workmen. The appellant never treated these workmen as its employees. The first respondent-union of the appellant filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) alleging unfair ~· c D labour practices in termination of the services of the workmen engaged in cleaning operations. The labour court dismissed the complaint by holding that the arrangement between the appellant and the contractor was legal and bona fide and that the abolition of contract labour could only be agitated under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Aboli- tion) Act, 1970 and not under the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court agreed with the Labour Court but the High Court held that the complaint was maintainable. Hence this appeal. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that only the appropri- ate Government had the power to abolish the contract labour system and that the industrial tribunal or any other authority had no jurisdiction to E entertain such disputes. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that under Section 32 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Labour Court had the power to decide all matters arising out of a complaint and, therefore, it could direct abolition of labour system; and that under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act F the Labour Court had the power to decide incidental questions arising out of a complaint. G H Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. If the employees are working under a contract covered by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 then it is clear that the labour court or the industrial adjudicating authorities cannot have any jurisdiction to deal with the matter as it falls within the province of an appropriate Government to abolish the same. If the case put forth by the workmen is that they have been directly employed by the appellant-company but the contract itself is a camouflage and, therefore, •• ~ + .. ....... ..... f . -.... CIPLA LTD. v. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION 3 needs to be adjudicated is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.