LOKMAT Vs. DNYANESHWAR HARIBHAU KADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are finally heard with consent of Counsel for the parties. In all these petitions, common question is involved. Therefore, these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE respondents claiming to be the employees of petitioner have filed complaints before the Industrial Court, Nagpur under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act ). In these complaints respondents sought the reliefs to grant the status and all other privileges and benefits that are applicable to regular and permanent peons with retrospective effect and in any case from the date on which the complainants completed 240 days of continuous service and to give to the complainants the benefits are made applicable through Palekar and Bachawat Report. These complaints are still pending before the Industrial Court. The petitioner has filed reply to the complaints on 15-7- 1998, wherein relationship of employer employees between petitioner and respondents has been denied. The petitioner also filed an application dated 7-4-2001 for dismissal of the complaints as not maintainable, but no orders have been passed by the Industrial Court on that application. However, the Industrial Court proceeded with the complaints and recorded evidence of the parties to the complaints. It appears that when the hearing part of the complaints was almost on completion, the petitioner filed application dated 10-4-2001 for deciding the earlier applications before proceeding in the matter. The petitioner has relied upon three judgments of the Apex Court wherein it has been held that when the relationship of employer employees is denied, then the complaint filed by the complainant under the M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act cannot be maintained. Inspite of clear position, the learned Member of the Industrial Court passed impugned order dated 20-4-2001 observing that the objections raised by the petitioner will be taken into consideration while deciding the complaints on merit. It is this order, passed by the Industrial Court which is subject matter of challenge in all these petitions.

(3.) BEFORE going into the rival contentions and submissions of the parties, it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that the complaints filed by the respondents before the Industrial Court in the year 1996 are still pending and the hearing of the complaints is being stalled, because of the pendency of these petitions in the High Court. It is also worthwhile to mention that this Court has already disposed of writ petition filed by the respondents (bearing Writ Petition No. 1670/1998) by order dated 15-6-1998 confirming the order of the Industrial Court rejecting the prayer for interim relief. But while disposing of that petition, this Court directed the Industrial Court to decide the complaints as early as possible preferably by the end of the year. It appears that the Industrial Court did not accede to the request of the petitioner to dismiss the complaints, but decided to decide the complaints on merits only because this Court has directed to decide the complaints within stipulated period.