(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union impugns the legality and validity of the order dated 24th October 1994 passed by the learned Presiding Officer. 7th Labour Court, Bombay, dismissing the complaint bearing Complaint (ULP) No. 334 of 1993 filed by the petitioner-union under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "mrtu and PULP Act" ). The petition also challenges the order dated 27-7-1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order passed by the Presiding Officer, 7th Labour Court, Bombay, dismissing the complaint.
(2.) THE complaint was filed on the ground that respondent No. 1, CIPLA Limited, a Company manufacturing pharmaceutical products has been engaging in unfair labour practices under Item 1 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act.
(3.) IT was contended that the respondent-company is engaged in the manufacture of drugs and pharmaceuticals and is employing about 30 workmen concerned with cleaning and maintaining hygienic atmosphere in the company. Respondent No. 2 viz. , Deluxe Estate Services is alleged to be a contractor. However, according to the complainant-union, the said agency is merely a name lender. It was alleged that being a drug and pharmaceutical manufacturing company, respondent No. 1 company has of necessity to maintain absolute hygienic conditions as stipulated in the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It was contended that it was the statutory duty of the respondent-company to keep the factory premises clean, hygienic and dust free in accordance with the provisions of Schedule M to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It was contended that, as such, the workmen employed in the aforesaid work of cleaning, sweeping, etc. are direct employees engaged by the company. It was alleged that the company had been directly employing the workmen to do the said work. However, the company used to appoint such persons on casual basis and used to terminate their services with a view to depriving them of permanent status and wages and other benefits. It was contended that such employment continued till about the year 1990-91. However, sometime in 1991, the workmen joined the Union and the moment the company became aware of the development, the services of all the workmen were terminated. Since about 1991, the company had been engaging or employing persons for the said work. However, a detailed paper arrangement is made showing as if the workmen were employed by an independent contractor, viz. , the aforesaid respondent No. 2, Deluxe Estate Services. It was contended that Deluxe Estate Services is merely a name lender and it is the company which is the real and direct employer of the workmen concerned. A list of workmen was also annexed to the complaint. It was alleged that the moment a person completes 11 months of service, the company through the alleged contractor i. e. respondent No. 2, terminate the service of such a workmen. At the relevant time, it was alleged that there were about 30 workmen who were employed for various periods between eight months to three months. In view of the practice followed by the company and in view of the apprehension that the moment they complete 11 months, their services will be terminated, the complaint was filed. It was asserted that it is the company who interviews and selects the person and upon selection, they are sent to the companys doctor for a medical check-up and only those workmen found fit after medical examination are appointed. However, the company has not given them any appointment letters. They are given attendance cards by the alleged contractor only to show that they are employees of respondent No. 2. It is alleged that the workmen are not permitted to sign the muster of the company only with a view to showing that they have nothing to do with the company. In fact, all these workmen are working under the direct supervision, control and direction of the officers of the company. It is asserted that it is the officer of the company who assign the work to the concerned workmen, supervise the work and control the workmen. It was further asserted that they are granted leave by the officers of the company and also paid by the companys officers. It was on these allegations that it was asserted that the workmen are direct employees and their employer was the company.