DELUX THEATRES PVT LTD Vs. BOMBAY LABOUR UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition impugns the order of the Industrial Court, Bombay, dated 9th July, 1984, made in Complaint (ULP) No. 140 of 1983 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE petitioner is a Private Limited Company doing the business of exhibiting films and owns a Cinema Theatre known as 'navrang Cinema' at Andheri. There were about 38 workmen working on the premises of Navrang Cinema. Out of these, we are concerned only with 10 workmen who were employed in the five Cafeterias situated on the premises of the said Navrang cinema. The others were employed in connection with the exhibition of pictures and we are not concerned with them in the present petition. Some time in the last week of January 1983, 13 workmen connected with the exhibition of pictures and 7 workmen working in the Cafeterias, became members of the respondent-union. The respondent addressed a letter dated 27th January, 1983, informing the petitioner that the majority of the workmen working in their establishment had become its members and called upon the petitioner to recognise it as the authorised sole collective bargaining agent. It also made certain other demands in regard to the application of the bombay Shops and Establishment Act and payment of minimum wages to its member-workmen. On 29th January, 1983, the services of 4 of such workmen who had become members of the respondent-union were abruptly terminated by the petitioner. On 30th January, 1983, the petitioner terminated the services of another 5 workmen. All these 9 workmen were the workmen who were connected with the exhibition of films. On 3rd February, 1983, one of the workmen concerned in the present petition, namely, Tanaji J. Limkar was removed from service. Again on 25th February, 1983, another 5 workmen working in the Cafeteria, who are all workmen concerned in the present petition, were also abruptly removed from service. The respondent-union alleges that all these workmen had been told by one Ismailbhai Patel, a director of the petitioner company and its manager to resign from the membership of the respondent union. It is also alleged that the petitioner terminated, in all, services of 8 workmen who were working in the Cafeteria because they did not resign from the membership of the respondent union. Curiously, however, during this period 7 workmen connected with exhibition of films addressed a joint letter of resignation on 18th February, 1983, to the respondent-union and purported to resign from its membership. The respondent-union filed a complaint before the industrial Court, Bombay, in which after making the factual allegations as to the circumstances under which the services of the 8 concerned workmen, (1) Ibrahim Yusuf Patel, (2) Wali Ismail patel, (3) Yakub Hasan Patel, (4) Mohamed K. M. , (5) D. V. Kadam, (6) Sadanand S. Gawde, (7)Shankar Ratnu Ramane and (8) Tanaji J. Limkar, were terminated in quick succession, the respondent-union contended that the termination of the services of the said 8 workmen amounted to unfair labour practice within the meaning of Items 1 (a), 4 (a) and 4 (f) of Schedule II of the act.

(3.) THE petitioner contested the complaint and contended that in or about March 1973, the director and shareholders of the company had sold all their shares to the present share-holders and that since March 1973, the affairs of the petitioner company were being looked after by ismail Patel, Ismail I. Bhagat and Smt. Farida Ismail Patel. The case made out was that at the time the new shareholders acquired the property known as 'navrang Cinema', there were five canteens situated in the said Cinema and by an agreement dated 15. 4. 1974, these Canteens were given on lease to a firm carrying on the business in the name of Navrang Cafeteria. It was alleged that the workmen working in the five Cafeterias were all workmen of the said Navrang cafeteria and not of the petitioner-company. It was contended that there was no rural relationship of the employer and the employee between the petitioner-company and the concerned workmen of the Cafeteria. The petitioner took up the stand that it was not the real employer of the 8 workmen in question and that the complaint was misconceived and not maintainable against it. The petitioner also denied adverse allegations with regard to unfair labour practice and maintained that there was no case on merits.