SARVA SHRAMIK SANGH versus MIS. INDIAN SMELTING AND REFINING CO. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 1003 · Decided: 28-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SARY A SHRAMIK SANGH 
A 
v. 
MIS. INDIAN SMELTING AND REFINING CO. LTD. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 28, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws : 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair 
Labour Practices Act, 1971-Jurisdiction under-Scope of-Held, C 
jurisdiction under the Act can be availed only after employer-employee 
relationship having been adjudicated upon under ID Act and not when 
such issue is in dispute-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Legislative intent and meaning of statute-Ascertainment of-Held, 
has to be ascertained not only from the language but also from its nature, 
design and consequences. 
Practice and Procedure : 
Review of its previous judgments by Supreme Court-Scope o/-
Held: : Though the Court has inherent jurisdiction to revise its earlier 
decision, but the same should not be done only because alternate view 
D 
E 
pressed on subsequent occasion is more reasonable-Stare decisis. 
F 
In General Labour Union (Red Flag), Bombay v. Ahmedabad Mfg. 
and Calico Printing Co. Ltd and Ors., [1995] Suppl. 1 SCC 175, Vividh 
Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd. and Anr, (2001] 2 SCC 381 and 
CJPLA Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors., [2001] 3 
sec 101, it was held that before filing any complaint under Maharashtra G 
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Pract~ces 
Act, 1971 (Maharashtra Act}, workmen have to establish employer-
employee relationship. 
In the present case appellants-workmen contended that the above H 
1003 
1004 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A decisions needed to be revised as various relevant provisions of .the 
Maharashtra Act were not taken into consideration, that Maharashtra 
Act as well as Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are co-extensive and 
remedies are available under both the above enactments at the option 
of the workmen, though not under both the Acts; that Sections 7, 28 
B and 32 of Maharashtra Act cannot be construed to keep an adjudication 
regarding workmen and principal employer relationship out of the 
purview of the Maharashtra Act notwithstanding it being disputed; 
that in case of having more than one provision for governing a 
situation, the provisions have to be harmoniously construed; that the 
definition of 'workmen' was by logic of incorporation, and, therefore, 
C the Tribunal under the ID Act alone cannot be held competent to 
effectively decide the question of employer-employee relationship. 
Respondents contended that when three different Benches of 
Supreme Court had consistently taken the view for over 10 years, the 
D same could not be "interfered only on the ground that there may be 
scope for another possible view. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. In order to entertain a complaint under the Maharashtra 
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices 
Act, 1971, it has to be established that the claimant was an employee of 
the employer against whom complaint is made, under the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947. When there is no dispute about such relationship the 
Maharashtra Act would have full application. When that basic claim is 
F disputed obviously the issue has to be adjudicated by the forum which is 
competent to adjudicate. The sine qua non for application of the concept 
of unfair labour practice is the existenceofa direct relationship of employer 
and employee. Until that basic question is decided the forum recedes to 
the background in the sense that first that question has to be got separately 
G adjudicated. Even ifit is accepted for th~ sake of argument thattwo forums 
are available, the Court certainly can say which is the more appropriate 
fro um to effectively get it adjudicated. Once the existence of contractor is 
accepted, it leads to an inevitable conclusion that a relationsip exists 
between the contractor and the complainant. It is the relationship existing 
H bycontractualarrangementwhich issoughtto beabandonedarid negated 
-
: 
-
SARVA SHRAMIKSANGH v. INDIAN SMELTING & REFINING CO. LTD. 1005 
and in its place the complainant's claim is to the effect that there was in A 
reality a relationship between the em ploy er and the complainant directly. 
It is the establishment of the existence of such an arrangement which 
decides the jurisdiction. An industrial dispute has to be raised before the 
Tribunal under the ID Act to nave the issue relating to actual nature of 
employmen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.