2001 JTR(SC) 34
2001 AIR(SC) 1534 ; 2001 AIR(SCW) 170 ; 2001 1 AllMR(SC) 860 ; 2001 2 BomCR(SC) 324 ; 2001 1 BomLR 585 ; 2001 98 FJR 261 ; 2001 88 FLR 727 ; 2002 1 JCR(SC) 429 ; 2001 1 JT 303 ; 2001 LIC 499 ; 2001 1 LLJ 569 ; 2001 1 LLN 782 ; 2001 3 RLW(Raj) 373 ; 2001 1 Scale 82 ; 2001 2 SCC 381 ; 2001 SCC(L&S) 436 ; 2001 1 SCR 108 ; 2001 1 SCT 708 ; 2001 1 SLR 26 ; 2001 1 SLT 373 ; 2001 1 UJ 454 ; 2001 KHC 1831 ; 2001 1 Supreme 76
2001(1) Supreme 76
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Industrial Court at Pune)
S. Rajendra Babu & S.N. Variava, JJ.
Vividh Kamgar Sabha -Appellant
versus
Kalyani Steels Ltd. & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3375 of 1998
Decided on 9-1-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : P. Cama, and Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocates, Sunil Gupta, Makarand D. Adkar, S.D. Singh, Padmakar Kulkarni, Rajesh Kumar, Rajiv Joshi, Ms. Aparajitha Singh, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Prashant Kumar and Gaurav Agrawal, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
The provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices 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.
Act Referred :MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT : Sch.iv Item.6, S.28(1), Sch.ii Item.1(a), Sch.iv Item.10, S.21, Sch.iv Item.7, Sch.iv Item.9, Sch.iv Item.3, Sch.ii Item.1, Sch.iv Item.5, Sch.ii Item.4(a), Sch.ii Item.1(b), Sch.ii Item.4
(A) The operative provisions are drawn from the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, read with the principles laid down in prior jurisprudence. Section 28(1) governs the filing of complaints alleging unfair labour practices, while Schedule II and Schedule IV specify the relevant unfair practices, including those concerning denial of workmen status, discriminatory treatment, and failure to recognise union representatives. Notably, Sections 21 and 28 contemplate that only workmen who are part of the recognised workforce may maintain complaints, and the schedules delineate the procedural and substantive safeguards against practices such as notionally engaging contractors to circumvent direct employment obligations. The present complaint invokes these provisions alleging that the respondents have engaged in unfair practices by not treating the union members as their direct employees and by invoking contractors, thereby triggering the protections under the Act.
(B) A complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act is maintainable only where the aggaining party is accepted as workmen by the establishment; if there is a dispute regarding workmen status, that dispute must first be resolved through the appropriate forum before a complaint under the Act can be entertained. The Industrial Court lacks the power to adjudicate on the merits of workmen status when it is denied by the employer, and a finding against workmen status by the Industrial Court is binding until reversed by a competent forum. Consequently, an SLP challenging the dismissal of such a complaint lies only after the status issue is determined elsewhere, and any observations in an impugned order on workmen status do not preclude a merits determination once status is established.
Facts of the case:
The Appellant Union claimed to represent workmen of a canteen run by the Respondents and alleged that the Respondents treated them less favourably compared to other employees and notionally engaged contractors to operate the canteen. The Appellant filed a complaint under Section 28(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act alleging several unfair labour practices under Schedule II and Schedule IV. The complaint was dismissed by the Industrial Court, and the Appellant filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Appellant Union was not accepted as employees of the Respondent Company and that the question of whether they are workmen was disputed and required determination by an appropriate forum. The Court found that as long as workmen status remained disputed and unestablished, the complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act was not maintainable. The Court clarified that once workmen status is established by an appropriate forum, a complaint under the Act may be entertained, and the merits would be decided without being influenced by the Industrial Court's earlier findings.
Issues:
Whether a complaint under Section 28(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act is maintainable where the workmen status of the alleged workmen is disputed and has not been determined by an appropriate forum.
Ratio Decidendi:
A complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act can only be entertained if the complainant is accepted as workmen; if workmen status is denied by the employer and remains in dispute, the matter must first be resolved by the appropriate forum before any complaint under the Act can be maintained, and findings on workmen status by an Industrial Court in such dismissed proceedings do not preclude a merits hearing once status is established elsewhere.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, the impugned order is affirmed, and the complaint is held not maintainable pending determination of workmen status by an appropriate forum.
(A) The operative provisions are drawn from the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, read with the principles laid down in prior jurisprudence. Section 28(1) governs the filing of complaints alleging unfair labour practices, while Schedule II and Schedule IV specify the relevant unfair practices, including those concerning denial of workmen status, discriminatory treatment, and failure to recognise union representatives. Notably, Sections 21 and 28 contemplate that only workmen who are part of the recognised workforce may maintain complaints, and the schedules delineate the procedural and substantive safeguards against practices such as notionally engaging contractors to circumvent direct employment obligations. The present complaint invokes these provisions alleging that the respondents have engaged in unfair practices by not treating the union members as their direct employees and by invoking contractors, thereby triggering the protections under the Act.
(B) A complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act is maintainable only where the aggaining party is accepted as workmen by the establishment; if there is a dispute regarding workmen status, that dispute must first be resolved through the appropriate forum before a complaint under the Act can be entertained. The Industrial Court lacks the power to adjudicate on the merits of workmen status when it is denied by the employer, and a finding against workmen status by the Industrial Court is binding until reversed by a competent forum. Consequently, an SLP challenging the dismissal of such a complaint lies only after the status issue is determined elsewhere, and any observations in an impugned order on workmen status do not preclude a merits determination once status is established.
Facts of the case:
The Appellant Union claimed to represent workmen of a canteen run by the Respondents and alleged that the Respondents treated them less favourably compared to other employees and notionally engaged contractors to operate the canteen. The Appellant filed a complaint under Section 28(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act alleging several unfair labour practices under Schedule II and Schedule IV. The complaint was dismissed by the Industrial Court, and the Appellant filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Appellant Union was not accepted as employees of the Respondent Company and that the question of whether they are workmen was disputed and required determination by an appropriate forum. The Court found that as long as workmen status remained disputed and unestablished, the complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act was not maintainable. The Court clarified that once workmen status is established by an appropriate forum, a complaint under the Act may be entertained, and the merits would be decided without being influenced by the Industrial Court's earlier findings.
Issues:
Whether a complaint under Section 28(1) of the MRTU & PULP Act is maintainable where the workmen status of the alleged workmen is disputed and has not been determined by an appropriate forum.
Ratio Decidendi:
A complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act can only be entertained if the complainant is accepted as workmen; if workmen status is denied by the employer and remains in dispute, the matter must first be resolved by the appropriate forum before any complaint under the Act can be maintained, and findings on workmen status by an Industrial Court in such dismissed proceedings do not preclude a merits hearing once status is established elsewhere.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, the impugned order is affirmed, and the complaint is held not maintainable pending determination of workmen status by an appropriate forum.
JUDGMENT
S.N. Variava, J.-This Appeal is against an Order passed by the Industrial Court on 20th August, 1996.
2. 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.
3. 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. Naik1, has already held that the Industrial Court cannot in a complaint under MRUT & PULP Act abolish contract labour and treat employees as direct employees of the company.
4. 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.2, 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.
5. 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 established in an appropriate Forum that a complaint could be made under the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act.
6. 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.
7. 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.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
***************