SURESH NAGORAO MATHANE Vs. PRABHAKAR MOHANJI BHELE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 anc 227 of the Constitution of India, both the petitioners-employees have sough the relief as under :

(2.) IN both these petitions common questions are involved, and therefore, can be disposed of by this common judgment. Relevant facts are as under : shikshak Sahakari Mudranalaya is a printing press in which daily newspaper "dainik Indrapuri Samachar" is being printed and published. In consequence of the application of Palekar Award to the newspaper industry, the respondent No. 1, i. e. proprietor of the said press and newspaper, artificially separated the office of the newspaper, the printing press and formed a third unit called Madhu Art. He obtained separate registration for the unit showing himself as the owner of the Mudranalaya, his brother as owner of the newspaper and nephew Diwakar as the owner of Madhu Art. Thus, artificially dividing the Mudranalaya into three separate units and dividing the employees of the press between the press and Madhu Art, an attempt was made to avoid the liability of payment of difference in wages in consequence of the palekar Award. One Uttam Patankar whose services were transferred to the third unit, Madhu Art filed a complaint under section 28 of the M. R. T. U. and p. U. L. P. Act vide Complaint ULP Nc. 209/79 challenging the termination of his services by Shri Diwakar Bhele, who was shown as the proprietor of the third unit of Madhu Art. In that case all the three proprietors, i. e. Prabhakar, uttam and Diwakar Bhele were joined as respondents. In that case the Labour Court recorded the finding that separate establishments as shown were in fact one which is based on the report of Inspector of Factory, Class-I, Akola who visited the Mudranalaya on 20-5-1978 after the date of accepted separation and found that all the employees were working at one place in the premises of the Mudranalaya and the name of the employer was Shri Prabhakar Mohanji bhele. The real employer, i. e. Shikshak Sahakari Mudranalaya and the Dainik samachar were directed to reinstate the employee with full back wages. The industrial Court in revision confirmed this finding in its judgment dated 23-3-1984 and the two judgments of the courts below were challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1365/1984 and the said writ petition was dismissed confirming the finding recorded by both the courts below.

(3.) SEVEN employees filed application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming difference in wages to which they were entitled as per the Palekar Award for the period from October, 1982 to December, 1985. The proprietor of the three units were not party to this application. Common evidence was recorded in all those applications. Insofar as the five employees are concerned, the Labour Court granted the claim of the employees while in the case of claimant and one another workman who was on the muster roll of madhu Arts, their applications were rejected.