RAMAKANT LAXMAN SARMALKAR Vs. NOWROJEE WADIA MATERNITY HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26-4-2000 passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint U. L. P. No. 504 of 1990 dismissing the complaint filed by him under section 28 read with Items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV and Items 1 (a), (b) and 4 (a) of Schedule II of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices, Act, 1971 (for short M. R. T. U. and P. U. L. P. Act. ). The main thrust of the petitioner in the complaint appears to be on Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act though other items are mentioned in the complaint. The petitioner had filed the complaint originally along with his union against the respondent No. 1 praying precisely, for the benefits and privileges of permanency from the respondent No. 1. It further appears that though the complaint initially was filed on behalf of a number of employees by the union finally, it was the petitioner alone who contested the complaint on behalf of himself. Even the present petition is filed by him. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 8-12-1970 as projectionist-cum-mechanic on temporary basis. He is entitled to be regularised in the employment by the respondent No. 1 and he is entitled to get privileges and benefits of permanency with retrospective effect from the date on which he had completed 240 days from the date of his appointment.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 filed its written statement to contest the complaint and it denied the employer-employee relationship between itself and the petitioner. According to the respondent No. 1 it was under the Post-Partum Programme (for short PPP) launched by the Central Government through the State Government to control the population in the country. The respondent No. 1 had accepted the programme at the instance of the Central Government and that it had practically nothing to do in the said project, and therefore, the persons employed for the said project were not the employees of the respondent-hospital. The respondent No. 1 pointed out that the persons employed under the said programme were paid from the independent fund received from the State Government which inturn received the funds from the Central Government for implementation of the said programme. In the circumstances it was pleaded by the respondent-hospital that it was not the employer of the persons engaged to implement the programme, and therefore, they were not responsible for their permanency and for their other service conditions. To be precise, the respondent Hospital totally disowned the responsibility of the persons working in the said project. It pointed out its finger at the Central Government and the State Government. It therefore, became necessary to implead both of them in the complaint. Both were therefore impleaded in the complaint and both had contested the complaint vehemently. According to them, they were merely financing the project and it was the sole responsibility of the respondent hospital to employ the persons to implement the PPP. According to the State Government it received the funds for the PPP from the Central Government and it entirely disbursed the same amongst the various agencies which were engaged by the Central Government to implement the PPP. Both of them pleaded that they had no supervision and control over the persons engaged by the respondent-hospital for the purpose of PPP. The respondent No. 1 vehemently asserted that all the service conditions including the post and pay were prescribed by the Central Government and that it had no role or say in the matter in that respect.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings the learned Member of the Industrial Court framed the issues and answered the same against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties and the material produced by them before the Court. It was held by the Industrial Court that the respondent hospital had not engaged and was not engaging in any unfair labour practice as alleged by the petitioner and that the petitioner was not entitled to get any relief in the complaint. The Industrial Court appears to have held that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent hospital. Alternatively, the Industrial Court also came to a conclusion that the petitioner had miserably failed to establish any unfair labour practice against the hospital under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act as he could not point out the crucial nexus of object of depriving the petitioner of the privileges and benefits of permanency.