RAMA BALA KATE Vs. WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Industrial Court dated 21st April, 1988, made in complaint (ULP) Nos. 204 to 224 of 1985, dismissing the complaints under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) THE facts material for disposing of this writ petition are : The first respondent is a company engaged in the manufacture of sugar. At the material time, petitioners 1 to 17, 19 and 20 were engaged as Hamals doing the work of loading and unloading of sugar bags in the factory of the first respondent, ostensibly through petitioner No. 18 and respondent No. 5. Though actually employed by the first respondent, petitioner No. 18 and respondent No. 5 were shown as contractors, carrying out the work of loading and unloading on contract. There were regular contracts entered into between the first respondent and petitioner No. 18 and respondent No. 5 which were registered under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The first respondent was registered as a Principal Employer and the two contractors were issued licenses for engaging Contract Labour. It was the grievance of the petitioners that they were discriminated against in the matter of wages and other benefits as the wages and other benefits available to the employees directly employed by the first respondent were very much higher. The petitioners filed Complaints (ULP) Nos. 204 to 224 of 1985 before the Industrial Court at Pune alleging unfair labour practice within the meaning of Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Industrial Court after recording evidence and hearing the parties raised the following issues, answered them in the negative and dismissed the complaints by its common order which is impugned in this writ petition. "issues :

(3.) WHETHER they further prove that respondent 1 has failed to implement Award, settlement or agreement ?