INDUS TOWERS LIMITED Vs. RAJENDRA PATIL (YEDRAVKAR)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is challenging Order, dtd. 28/4/2023, and the Order, dtd. 20/12/2019. By the Order, dtd. 20/12/2019, the Industrial Court allowed the Application CA-8 and framed issues. By Order, dtd. 28/4/2023 the Industrial Court rejected the Petitioner's application to delete Petitioner's name from cause title of the Complaint on the ground of absence of Employee-Employer relationship between the first Respondent and the Petitioner.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relying on the Judgment in the case of Cipla, Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, 2001 (2) LLN 19, submitted that for maintaining proceedings under the provisions of the Act, the relationship between Employer-Employee must be indisputable or undisputed. He invited my attention to Paragraph No.6(d) of the Complaint and submitted that the averments indicated disputed relationship and therefore, the Complaint was not maintainable. He submitted that the Industrial Court recorded a finding that there is no Employer-Employee relationship between Petitioner and Respondent No.1, however, rejected the Petitioner's application on the ground that for smooth adjudication of the Complaint Respondent No.1 is necessary party.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that the material on record indicates that the relationship of Employer-Employee was indisputable and undisputed. The averments in Paragraph No 6(d) indicates grounds which may not be sufficient to record a finding of absence of Employer and Employee relationship. Hence, the Industrial Court has rightly rejected the Petitioner's Application on the ground that the Petitioner was necessary party.