(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant documents brought to my notice by the Counsel appearing for the respective parties.
(2.) This Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai dated 24th September 2007 below Exhibit C-8 in Complaint (ULP) No.1055 of 1956. By the said application, the lower Court was called upon to dismiss the complaint on the argument that the said Court had no jurisdiction to examine the complaint as filed by the Union. The lower Court has rejected the said application while holding that the issue as to whether there existed relationship of employer and employee between the parties, can be considered after giving opportunity to the Complainant to establish that position on the basis of documents to be filed by them. The Court has went on to prima facie observe that the plea of the Complainant was supported by documents with list at 'Exhibit U-5'. One of the circumstance was of deduction of ESIC Contribution of the employees.
(3.) According to the Petitioner-Employer, the said Court had no jurisdiction because the relationship of Petitioner and the employees - of 'employer and employee' - was neither indisputable nor undisputed. For, according to the Petitioner, the employees were not directly employed by the Petitioner. In fact, the Union's own case, contends Counsel for the Petitioner, as can be discerned from the complaint, is that the concerned employees; about 24 in numbers, referred to in the complaint, were employed for the activities of the Petitioner but rooted through the Contractor which is sham and bogus. According to the Petitioner, such a plea clearly spells out the position that the relationship between the parties is neither indisputable nor undisputed and for which reason, the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling S/W Pvt.Ltd. vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena & Ors. reported in 2001 III 1025 CLR 1025.