ICICI BANK LTD Vs. NARENDRA R PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent.

(2.) Impugned herein is the order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, confirming the order passed by the Labour Court whereby the labour Court, Mumbai, rejected the application made by the petitioner that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Cipla limited v. Maharashtra General Kamgar union AIR 2001 SC 1165 : (2001) 3 SCC 101 : 2001-I-LLJ-1063 and the Complaint was dismissed against the petitioner who was respondent No. 1 before that Court.

(3.) The respondents are workmen. Their services were terminated by ICICI Investors services Ltd. which is the subsidiary of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents filed complaint, being Complaint (ULP) No. 382 of 1998 alleging unfair labour practice practiced by the petitioner as well as ICICI Investors services Limited under items 5, 6, 9 and 10 of schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act. The petitioner as well as the other respondents who were the respondents to the complaint had filed written Statement wherein they disputed the relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondents herein. The Labour Court framed the issues in 1999 and then proceeded to record evidence. The complainant's evidence was recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Application (Exhibit "j" to the Petition). The Application was to the following effect: