Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3375 of 1998
PETITIONER:
VIVIDH KAMGAR SABHA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KALYANI STEELS LTD. & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/01/2001
BENCH:
S.N.Variava, S.R.Babu
JUDGMENT:
L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
J U D G M E N T S. N. VARIAVA, J.
This Appeal is against an Order passed by the
Industrial Court on 20th August, 1996. Briefly stated the
facts are as follows: The Appellants claim to be a Union
representing the workmen of a 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(1) of the
Maharashtra 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. 1, 1(a), 1(b),
4, 4(a) of Schedule II and Items 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of
Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. This Complaint came to
be dismissed by the impugned Order 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 Sangathana v. S. V. Naik
reported in (1993) 1 CLR Page 1002, has already held that
the Industrial Court cannot in a complaint under MRTU & 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@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay v. Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
Printing Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in (1995) 2 LLJ 765,
held that where the workmen have 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. The provisions of MRTU & PULP Act
can only be enforced by persons who admittedly are workmen.
If there is 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 workmen is
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
established in an appropriate Forum that a complaint could
be made under the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act. Faced with
this situation it was submitted that the Respondent Company
had always recognised the members of the Appellant Union to
be their own workmen. It is submitted that a formal denial
was taken only to defeat the claim. We see no substance in
this submission. In the written statement it has been
categorically denied that the members of the Appellant Union
were employees of the Respondent Company. The question has
been agitated before the Industrial Court. The Industrial
Court has given a finding, on facts, that the members of the
Appellant Union were not employees of the Respondent
Company. This is a disputed fact and thus till the
Appellants or their members, get the question decided in a
proper forum, this complaint was not maintainable.
Accordingly, we dismiss this Appeal on the ground that the
complaint was not maintainable. We clarify that it is open
for the Appellant or their members to raise dispute in this
behalf before an appropriate forum provided they are
entitled to do so. If they get a declaration to the effect
that they are employees of the Respondent Company, then it
may be open to them to file such a complaint. It is also
clarified that if a dispute as to their status is raised in
an appropriate forum then the same will be decided on merits
without taking into consideration any observations made or
finding given by the Industrial Court in the impugned Order.