DATTARAM PANCHAL Vs. NIRLON LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling yarn and other products. The petitioners filed a complaint in the Labour Court at Mumbai complaining that the first respondent committed unfair labour practices under Items 1 (a) , (b) , (d) and (f) of schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions' and Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. According to them, the petitioners had served the company in excess of 240 days in each calender year during the course of their employment. Though the workmen had been designated as trainees, the duties which were performed by them were stated to be regular and perennial in nature. There was according to them absolutely no difference in the duties performed by them and the other workmen who had been designated as permanent workmen of the company. On 22nd November, 1999 the services of the petitioners were dispensed with allegedly without following due process of law and without the payment of any retrenchment compensation. In these circumstances, it was alleged that the action of the management constituted an unfair labour practice under the provisions of Schedule IV of the Act.

(2.) The complaint was initially filed by 21 workmen. Of these complainants 16 have since entered into a settlement in May, 2000. On 11th January, 2003, the management filed an application calling into question the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that there was no relationship of an employer and employee with the petitioners. The aforesaid application was rejected by the labour Court by its order dated 12th January, 2004. Before the Labour Court reliance was sought to be placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Cipla ltd. vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, (2001) I CLR 754 and Sarva shramik Sangh vs. M/s Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd. , 2003 (III) CLR 949 (SC). The Supreme Court had in these cases held that unless the relationship of an employer and employee is undisputed or indisputable, the jurisdiction of the Labour or Industrial Court under the provisions of the Act to entertain a complaint would not stand attracted. The Labour Court held that Cipla dealt with a case where the complainant workmen were engaged by a contractor. The workmen had sought to repudiate the relationship with the contractor and to seek a direct employer employee relationship with the principal employer. It was in these facts that it was held that this could not form the subject matter of a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, since the repudiation of a contract with one employer and the establishment of a contract with another employer could only be the result of an adjudication by the competent forum under the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. On the other hand, in the present case there is no dispute about the fact that the complainant workmen were engaged directly by the respondent company as trainees. The Labour Court held that the question as to whether the complainants were workmen within the meaning of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 and consequently governed by the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 was a separate matter and that could be decided by the Court. The Court noted that the complainants had filed a number of documents regarding their leave, salary etc. which was all sanctioned or paid by the respondents. In the circumstances, the application was rejected.

(3.) The company carried the matter in revision and the application came to be allowed by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court held that the appointment letters clearly referred the workmen as trainees and though there was no third party like a contractor between the workmen and the company, the fact remains that the company had come with a case that the workmen are the trainees. This issue the Industrial Court held could not be decided by Labour court. Reliance was sought to be placed by the workmen on the judgment of the supreme Court in M/s Trimbak Rubber Industries Ltd. vs. Nasik Workers Union, jt 2003 (5) SC 602. That was distinguished on the ground that in the case before the Supreme Court it emerged that all the workmen engaged by the management were trainees.