CIPLA LIMITED Vs. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent, which is a Union of the workmen, filed a complaint against the appellant for unfair labour practices under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act') under Item 1(a) by way of victimisation; (b) not in good faith, but in the colourable exercise of the employer's right; (d) for patently false reasons; and (f) in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice in the conduct of domestic enquiry or with undue haste of Scheduled IV of the Act. Before the Seventh Labour Court at Bombay it was claimed by the respondent herein that the statutory duty of the appellant is not only to keep the factory premises clean, hygienic and dust free but also the surroundings thereof in terms of Schedule "M" of Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 and the employees engaged for such process are, therefore, employees of the company itself; that, in fact, the appellant had been directly employing the workmen to attend such work and the appellant used to appoint such persons on casual or temporary basis and terminate their services from time to time with a view to depriving them of the permanent status and wages other benefits as applicable to permanent workmen of the appellant; that this situation continued till the year 1990-91 when such casual or temporary workmen engaged in cleaning process joined the respondent-Union in order to protect their rights for permanency in the appellant-company; that since about 1991 the appellant has been engaging persons but on paper they are shown as 'contract workmen' working for contractor, respondent No. 2 herein; that the second respondent is only a name lender whereas the appellant is the real employer of the workmen; that the appellant through the second respondent terminated the services of such workmen employed through second respondent the moment the persons completed 11 months of services thereby depriving them of the status of premanent workmen; that the entire effort being made to void giving permanency to the workmen concerned with sanitation, sweeping and in keeping the factory premises and surrounding thereof in a hygienic condition. It is further alleged that there are about 30 such workmen who were engaged in such activities; that in keeping with the past practice, the respondent had reasons to apprehend that the moment any of the workmen completes 11 months of service, the services of such employee would be terminated. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the recruitment of such workmen is done by the appellant and upon selection such workmen are sent to appellant's doctor for medical check up. However, they are not given any appointment letters but are given attendance cards by the second respondent only to show that they are the employees of the second respondent and not that of the appellant. They claimed that they are the workmen working under the direct supervision, control and direction of the officers of the appellant who assign work to them and they are granted leave by the officers of the appellant and are also paid by the appellant; that the company is the real employer apart from being the employees because of statutory obligation of the company to employ such workmen; that, however, the appellant denied the relationship of employer-employee from various stages; that such denial of relationship is only to deprive the workmen of permanency in the company and payment of wages as are applicable to the permanent workmen of the company; that the company has denied this relationship as employer and thus this cause of action has arisen in this complaint; that the appellant has engaged in unfair labour practices in terms of Act and it be directed to cease and desist from continuing to do so.

(2.) The appellant, apart from denying that it is guilty of unfair labour practices under Item 1(a), (d) and (f) of Scheduled IV of the Act, contended that the persons listed in Exhibit "A" and referred to in the complaint are not the employees of the company nor are they employed ostensibly through the second respondent. The appellant categorically denied that they are the employees of the company and there has never been any employer-employee relationship between them and, therefore, the question of terminating the services of the employees employed by the second respondent would not arise. The appellant contended that since it is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products for which a high degree of cleanliness and hygiene is required to be maintained and, therefore, it is necessary for the company to seek the services of the specialised agencies and this practice has been in vogue for several years and in the last eight years such services have been obtained from three different agency and they are (i) M/s. Estate Services, (ii) M/s. Advent Clean and Care Corporation and (iii) M/s. Deluxe Estate Services. The second respondent had been engaged as an agency for rendering house-keeping and hygiene services and the terms of the engagement were set out in a letter dated 28-2-1992. Pursuant to such rendering of services the second respondent had engaged services of the persons named in Exhibit "A". The appellant contended that the named persons in the Exhibit "A" to the complaint are those who have joined the second respondent only during the last 3 to 8 months. The appellant denied that it interviewed and selected the persons to be employed by the second respondent, but it was expected that persons employed by the second respondent were subjected to periodical medical examination in order to comply with the statutory requirements for maintaining proper hygiene integrity of the manufacturing processes of the company. It is also denied by the appellant that the workmen are working under the direct control and supervision of the officers of the company and there is any employer-employee relationship between them. It was submitted that the second respondent pays wages to those employees in accordance with or more than the minimum wages. It is also contended that the appellant has obtained registration as required under the earlier Act and the copy of which was produced in the proceedings. The second respondent supported the contentions made by the appellant.

(3.) The Labour Court on the basis of these pleadings framed the following issues: