THE MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. SWARAJYA KAMGAR SANGHATANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Issue raised in this petition is as regards whether a complaint filed by contract labourers or through their Union could be maintained under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, after the Industrial Court has arrived at a prima facie conclusion that the workmen concerned are contract labourers and have been deployed by labour contractors on the establishment of the principal employer. I have, therefore, heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner/ management and the respondent/ Union at length.

(2.) The first respondent herein filed complaint (ULP) No. 15 of 2014 before the Industrial Court at Ahmednagar seeking status and benefits of permanency for the 71 workers mentioned in Annexure A to the complaint. Item Nos. 1 (a-b), 2 (a), 4 (c, e) of Schedule II and items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 were invoked.

(3.) It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioners prepared false and fabricated documents in order to project the workmen as contract labourers. The 71 workers mentioned in Annexure A have been working for about 7 to 9 years continuously. They are deliberately shown to be deployed by labour contractors. It is informed that the said complaint was amended by the Union and respondent No. 2 & 3 labour contractors were added as respondents by order dated 30-06-2014.