LexRAYMOND LTD. & ANOTHER versus TUKARAM TANAJI MANDHARE & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2011] 3 S.C.R. 753 RAYMOND LTD. & ANOTHER v. TUKARAM TANAJI MANDHARE & ANOTHER (Civil Appeal No. 5077 of 2006) MARCH 09, 2011 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] A B Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions anf} Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - s.3(5) and s.28 rlw items 1 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV- Complaint -C before Industrial Court! Labour Court - Maintainability of - Disputed employee-employer relationship - Three questions referred to High Court - 1) Whether a person who is employed by a contractor who undertakes contracts for the execution of the whole of the work or any part of the work which is ordinarily D work of the undertaking is an employee within the meaning of s.3(5) of the MRTU and PULP Act; 2) Whether a complaint filed under the MRTU and PULP Act by an employee as defined under s.3(13) of the BIR Act, is maintainable although no direct relationship of employer employee exists 1between E him and the principal employer and 3) Whether a complaint - filed under the MRTU. and PULP Act by employees under s.3(13) of the BIR Act can be dismissed if the employer claims that they are not his direct employees but are employed through a contractor - High Court answered F question numbers 1 and 2 in the affirmative, and question number 3 in the negative provided the contractors' workmen were employed to do the work of the whole or part of the undertaking - On appeal, held: In view of the difference of opinion in some of the cited decisions and the importance of G the controversy involved and its application particularly in the State of Maharashtra, an authoritative decision is required by a larger bench on the aforesaid questions - Matter, therefore, referred to larger bench - Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - s.3(13). 753 H. 754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 3 S.C.R. A Three questions were referred to the High Court, namely, I) Whether a person who is employed by a contractor who undertakes contracts for the execution of the whole of the work or any part of the work which is ordinarily work of the undertaking is an employee within B the meaning of section 3(5) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act); 2) :Whether a complaint filed under the MRTU and PULP Act by an employee as defined under section 3(13) of the c Bombay Industrial Relations Act, is maintainable although no direct relationship of employer employee exists between him and the principal employer and 3) Whether a complaint filed under the MRTU and PULP Act by employees under section 3(13) of the BIR Act can be 0 dismissed if the employer claims that they are not his direct employees but are employed through a contractor. The High Court answered the question numbers 1 and 2 in the affirmative, and question number 3 in the negative provided the contractors workmen were E employed to do the work of the whole or part of the undertaking. This decision was challenged in the instant appeal. Referring the matter to larger bench, the Court F HELD: A large numbers of decisions were cited. _ before this Court. In view of the difference of opinion In some of these decisions and the importance of the controversy Involved and its application particularly In the State of Maharashtra, an authoritative decision Is required G by a larger bench on the issues Involved. Hence, the matter Is referred to a larger bench on the Issues referred to above. [Paras 9, 10, 11] [759..C-F-G] Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steel Ltd, (2001) 2 H RAYMOND LTD. & ANOTHER v. TUKARAM TANAJI 755 MANDHARE & ANR. SCC 381; Gip/a Ltd. vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, A (2001) 3 SCC IOI; Sarva Shramik Sangh vs. Indian Smelting and Refining Co Ltd, (2003) 10 SCC 455; Dattatraya Kashinath and others vs. Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd and others, 1996 II LLJ 169 and Sakhar Kamgar Union vs. Shri Chhatrapati Rajaram Sahakari Sakhar B Karkhana Ltd and others, 1996 II CLR 67; Nagraj Gowda and others vs. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co Ltd, Bombay and others, 2003 Ill CLR 358 ; Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling Pvt Ltd. vs. Bharatiya Kamgar Sena, 2001 Ill CLR 1025 ; Vividha Kamgar Sabha vs. Ka/yani Steel Ltd. & another c (2001) 2 sec 381, Gip/a vs. MGK Union (2001) 3 sec 101, Sarva Shramik Sangh vs. Indian Smelting & Refining Company Limited (2003) 10 SCC 455, Mis Hindustan Leve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.