MAJID OOMERBHOY Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition before the Court has been instituted by one of the partners of an erstwhile partnership known by the name of M/s. Ahmed Oomerbhoy. The partnership firm was engaged in the manufacture and sale of edible oil at its factory situated at Two Tanks, M. S. Ali road, Mumbai-400 008. At the material time, the firm had about 284 regular employees apart from whom, contract employees were engaged through certain contractors from time to time. A suit was instituted before this Court (Suit 4913 of 2000) for dissolution and accounts. In the suit, by an ad-interim order dated 6th December 2000, the Court Receiver was appointed as Receiver of the business and assets of the partnership. The Notice of Motion for the appointment of a Receiver was made absolute on 31st July 2001. The Court Receiver took possession on 3rd September 2001. On a report of the Court Receiver, an order was passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court (D. K. Deshmukh, J.) on 9th November 2001, directing the Receiver to make payment immediately to the regular workers for the month of October 2001. In so far as the contract workmen were concerned, the workmen and the parties were directed to submit a copy of the contract to the Receiver. Upon verification as to whether the contract was subsisting, the Receiver was directed to terminate the contract and make payment to the contract workmen for October 2001. By a further order of 30th November 2001, of a Learned Single Judge of this Court (F. I. Rebello, J.), the Court Receiver was directed to pay to the contract workers, by whichever contractor they were engaged and who had been paid for the month of October 2001, their salary for the month of November 2001. This amount was to be adjusted against any dues that may be passed in the final order of adjudication by the appropriate forum. This Court, however, granted liberty to the applicant before the Court, Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh, to move the State Government for a reference to adjudication.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY, on a demand raised by the Union, a reference to adjudication under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was made. The reference related to 108 contract workmen, the claim being that the workmen be treated as permanent workmen and be given benefits at par with other permanent workmen of the establishment.

(3.) IN the statement of claim, the averment was that the contract workmen in question, have been working with the partnership firm for about 22-25 years through contract agencies. The contention was that the service conditions of the contract workmen were revised in meetings between the management of the partnership and the workmen's representatives though formally settlements were in the name of Labour contractors. In other words, the contention of the workmen was that the contract arrangements were a camouflage and that the relationship of employer and employee was between the workmen and the partnership firm. The workmen claimed that they were entitled to a declaration of permanency and to the payment of consequential benefits.