HYDROFLEX (INDIA) Vs. A.D.SHELAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) THE First Respondent had instituted a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 which is pending before the Labour Court. A total of 7 Respondents are parties to the complaints. The services of the First Respondent are stated to have been terminated by a letter dated 28th August, 1992. According to the First Respondent - complainant there is in fact no closure of the establishment of the Second Respondent, but in fact all the work has been carried out in the same premises. As already noted above, 7 Respondents have been impleaded as parlies to the complaint. An order of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service has been sought against all the Respondents. According to the First Respondent, the Respondents are family concerns and therefore, the business, it is alleged is the same, the premises are the same and the workmen carried on work for all the Respondents equally. Initially an order was passed by the Labour Court on 4th February, 1994 deleting all the Respondents to the complaint, save and except for Respondent No.1 thereto (the Second Respondent to the Petition). This order was thereafter challenged in revision and was affirmed. The First Respondent thereupon filed a petition before this Court which was allowed by a judgment of a Learned Single Judge dated 15th January 1999, by the decision in A.D. Shelar v. Package Gasket Products (1999 I CLR 876). The Learned Single Judge noted that in the present case, the First Respondent herein had claimed multiple employership and according to him, though he was paid his wages by the Second Respondent herein, he was employed by all the other Respondents. The Learned Single Judge was of the view that it would be appropriate that all parties should be before the Trial Court and however, misconceived the complaint may be on merits, it is only appropriate and proper that it should be decided in the presence of all the other parties. Subsequent to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Supreme Court has decided upon the issue of jurisdiction in relation to a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union 2001 I CLR 754 has since been reaffirmed in Sarva Shramik Sangh v. M/s. Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd. 2003 II CLR 949 SC. The Supreme Court has held thus: