LexVIVIDH KAMGAR SABHA versus KALYANI STEELS LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A . VIVIDH KAMGAR SABHA KALYANI STEELS LTD. AND ANR. JANUARY 9, 2001 B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] Lahour Lall': Maharashtra Recognition of' Trnde Unions & f're1·e111iu11 of' Unfair C Labour f'raclices Act. J<r I: Section 28( /)-Co111plai111 11nder- 1\fai11lainabili1y of'-Held: The prorisions of i\!RTU & !'UL!' Ac! can un~r he enjiirced by persons ll'hu are 11·urk111e11-0n~r (l/'ler establishing the starus as u 1rork111a11 cvmplainl can he mude under the AIRTU & PULP Ac!. The appellants claimed that they were the employees of the respondent. D But the respondent did not treat the appellants as its employees. Therefore, the appellants filed a complaint before the industrial Court under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 alleging that the respondent had engaged in unfair labour practices under the Act, which was dismissed as not E maintainable. Hence this appeal. F G Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : I. The provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 can only be enforced by persons who admittedly are workmen. If there is a dispute as to whether the employees are employees of the Company, then that dispute must first be got resolved by raising a dispute before the appropriate forum. It is only after the status as a workman is established in an appropriate forum that a complaint could be made under the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act. 1110-Bf Central Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay v. Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico f'rinling Co. Lid., (1995) 2 LLJ 765 SC, relied on. Kranlikari Suraksha Rakshak Sangathana v. S.V. Naik. (1993) I CLR H 1002 (Born), approved. 108 + t VIVIDH KAMGAR SABHA v. KALYANI STEELS LTD. [S.N. VARIAVA. J.] 109 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No .. 3375 of A 1998. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.96 of the Industrial Court at Pune in Complaint (ULP) No. 117 of 1993. P. Cama, and Raju Ramachandrn, Sunil Gupta, Makarand D. Adkar, B S.D. Singh, Padmakar Kulkarni, Rajesh Kumar, Rajiv Joshi, Ms. Aparajitha Singh, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Prashant Kumar and Gaurav Agrawal for the -.~ appearing parties. - _...._ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.N. VARIA VA, J. This Appeal is against an Order passed by the Industrial Court on 20th August, 1996. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: c The Appellants claim to be a Union representing the workmen of a D Canteen run by the Respondents. The Appellant Union claimed that even though the Appellants are actually the employees of the Respondents, the Respondents are not treating them at par with other employees and have notionally engaged contractors to run the canteen. As the Respondents were not accepting the Appellants' claim to treat them as their employees, the Appellant filed a Complaint under Section 28( I) of the Maharashtra E Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the MRTU & PULP Act) alleging that the Respondents had engaged in unfair labour practices under Item Nos. I, l(a), l(b), 4, 4(a) of Schedule II and Items 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and IO of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. This Complaint came to be dismissed by the impugned Order F dated 20th August, 1996. The Appellant Union has filed an SLP directly in this Court against this Order as the High Court of Bombay, in the case of Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sangath..ma v. S. V. Naik, reported in (1993) I CLR Page 1002, has already held that the Industrial Court cannot in a complaint under MRTU & G PULP Act abolish contract labour and treat employees as direct employees of the company. At this stage it must be mentioned that this Court has also in the case of Central Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay v. Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (1995) 2 LLJ 765, held that where the H 110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) l S.C.R. A workmen h.ave not been accepted by the Company to be its employees, then no complaint would lie under the MRTU & PULP Act. We are in full agreement with the above mentioned view. Th.e provisions of MRTU & PULP Act can only be enforced by persons who admittedly are workmen. If there is dispute as to whether the employees B are employees of the Company, then that dispute must first be got resolved by raising a dispute before the appropriate forum. It is only after
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.