OSWAL PETROCHEMICAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for respondents waive service. By consent, made returnable and taken up for final hearing forthwith.

(3.) THE petitioner has approached this Court to impugn the order dated 19th November, 1996 passed by the Industrial Court at Bombay in Complaint (U. L. P.) No. 1543 of 1991. The petitioner is the original respondent No. 2. The present respondent No. 3 had filed an application on behalf of the Canteen workers working in the Canteen of the petitioner herein but admittedly their services were employed through the Agency of respondent No. 4 who was respondent No. 1 in the original complaint and who is running the Canteen. The petitioner Union in their complaint alleged that the Canteen is a part of a factory and as such the members of the petitioners Union working in the Canteen would be the employees of the petitioner as the petitioner Company is under a statutory obligation to provide facility of Canteen for its workmen employed in its factory. It was further contended that the Canteen in question is being run by the petitioner in pursuance of the statutory requirement of section 46 of the Factories Act and that the Canteen is an integral part of the factory and that the workers are engaged in work in connection with and/or for the purpose of industry run by the petitioner company. Based on these averments, it was the contention of the complainant union that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practices under Item 5 of Schedule IV by showing favouritism to the other employees of respondent No. 2. The complainant union in the complaint had also contended that the petitioners were engaged in unfair labour practices as set out under Item 9, Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "mrtu and PULP Act" ). Reference was also made to some other unfair labour practices listed under Schedule II. An application for interim relief was also prayed to which the petitioner had filed a detailed affidavit dated 18th November 1991. Though the reply is styled as reply to interim application, a perusal of the reply would show that it has traversed and dealt with the averments in the complaint. The Industrial Court initially granted ad-interim relief on 28th November 1991. The same was varied by order dated 2nd January, 1992 and thereafter by order dated 13th January, 1992 the employees whose names were mentioned in Annexture "c" to the main complaint were directed to be kept in services of the new Contractor till the final decision of the matter.