CHANDRAN NAIR Vs. INDO FRENCH TIME INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the eight petitioners-workmen (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) challenge the judgment and order dated March 23, 1982 passed by the third respondent-Labour Judge, presiding over the Sixth Labour Court, Bombay, dismissing their complaint of unfair labour practice covered by Item 1 (a), (b) and (d) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU and PULP Act ).

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that respondent No. 1, M/s. Indo French Time Industries Limited, is an incorporated company. They appointed respondent No. 2, Sanjiva Shetty, as a canteen contractor in their factory premises. The petitioners joined a trade union known as Suburban General Workers Union and submitted a charter of demands dated October 19, 1979 on both respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 for revision of wages scales and improvement in the other service conditions on account of which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 started harassing them and threatened them with dire consequences. It is also the case of the petitioners that both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 refused to consider the charter of demands and one, the contrary terminated the services of the petitioners, along with some others, with effect from December 22, 1979. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were the employees of the first respondent who with a view to discourage and curb their legitimate trade-union activities terminated the services of the petitioners by removing the second respondent.

(3.) THE petitioners, therefore, filed Complainant (ULP) No. 18 of 1980 in the Court of the third respondent-Labour Judge under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The first respondent resisted the complaint and it was their case in the written statement that the petitioners were not their employees and that the second respondent-contractor terminated their services for which the first respondent was not liable. It appears that the second respondent did not even file the written statement and did not appear in the Labour Court to contest the complaint of the petitioners. On behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No. 2 gave evidence in support of the complaint whereas on behalf of the first respondent, Satish Bhiva Marathe, Personnel Manager was examined. The petitioners also relied upon some documentary evidence in the nature of letters dated 4-11-1979, 22-12-1979 and 24-12-1979.