SANDVIK ASIA LTD Vs. SECY PUNE MAZDOOR SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent union filed complaint (ULP) No. 170 of 1987 under Section 28 r/w item 1 (a) and (b) of Schedule II and Items 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'mrtu and PULP Act') seeking a declaration that the petitioners had committed an unfair labour practice by not obtaining licence under Contract Labour (Regulation and abolition) Act despite employing persons on contract labour. The declaration sought for is that these persons who were employed as contract labour were in fact employees of the petitioner. The second complaint (ULP) No. 88 of 1994 came to be filed by the respondent union in respect of security personnel for similar reliefs as in the earlier complaint. The complaint in respect of the security guards was heard and an order was passed by the Industrial court rejecting the complaint as not maintainable as the Industrial Court took the view that the judgment of this Court in krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana v. S. V. Naik, reported in 1993-II-LLJ-1145 (Bom-DB) governed the case at hand and, therefore, the complaint filed under the MRTU and PULP Act was not maintainable.

(2.) IN the light of this order, the petitioner filed an application before the Industrial Court for a similar order for rejection of Complaint (ULP) No. 170 of 1987 filed on behalf of the workers doing the work of cleaning and sweeping. This application was, however, rejected as the Industrial Court was of the view that there was no question of resjudicata with respect to the two complaints as the workmen involved were different and from different categories. Being aggrieved by this order dated april 3, 1995, the petitioner approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india.

(3.) MR. Cama, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the industrial Court was wrong in rejecting the application as in view of the well-settled position in law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Central Labour Union (Red Flag), bombay v. Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 175 : 1995-II-LLJ-765; Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd. and Anr. , reported in 2001 scc (Lands) 436 : 2001-I-LLJ-569; Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and ors. , reported in 2001 SCC (Lands) 520 : 2001-I-LLJ-1063 and the judgment of this court in Hindustan Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Bharatiya Kamgar Sena and ors. Appeal No. 782 of 2001 in Writ Petition no. 927 of 2001, 2002-I-LLJ-380 (Bom-DB), the complaint itself is not maintainable.