RAIGAD MAZDOOR SANGH Vs. VIKRAM ISPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Respondents waive service. Heard forthwith.

(2.) RESPONDENTS herein raised an objection to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the petitioners themselves had admitted that the workers whose cause they are espousing were employed with the Contractor and that they had applied to the appropriate Government for abolition of contract labour. In that light of the matter the respondents moved the Court reiving on the judgment in the case of Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd. 2001 I CLR 532 SC to contend that the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction. The Labour Court found favour with the contention of the respondents and accordingly dismissed the complaint. It is against. that order that the petitioners have moved this Court. Petitioners have raised two challenges. The first challenge is to the dismissal of the complaint itself. Secondly, in the alternative it is contended that the petitioners had applied to the Appropriate Government to abolish contract labour. The Appropriate Government till date has not taken decision in the matter and consequently the Court should direct the appropriate Government to take decision in the matter. It is contended that if decision is taken, that decision would be final and such a decision would be decision of a Tribunal and consequently this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain a petition on that count also. Elaborating the first contention learned Counsel points out that the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kate & Ors. 1995 II CLR 823, has taken the view that the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the Industrial Disputes Act are complimentary and supplementary to each other. The Apex Court in fact observed that the Court under the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act even has the power to pre -empt termination. The Court can interfere even before the employer discharges an employee. My attention is also invited to S.59(2) of the Act wherein if a case of unfair labour practice is filed in the matter of an individual or industrial dispute there would be a bar on the forum created under the I.D. Act in entertaining the dispute.

(3.) IN so far as the first contention is concerned, in my opinion considering the provisions of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd. (supra) and the subsequent judgment in the case of Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union in Civil Appeal No.12845 of 1996 decided on 21st February, 2001 (2001 I CLR 754) the Tribunal under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act in case where admittedly there is a contractor registered under the Contract Labour Registration Act would have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It may however, be made clear that what the Apex Court has held is in a case where the Contractor is a contractor registered under the Contract Labour Regulations Employment Act. There are situations wherein the employees are made contractors, and may in situations be registered under the Contract Labour Regulations Employment Act whether on the facts of such cases would the Courts under the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act would cease to have jurisdiction to my mind is an issue which has not been decided.