LOKMAT PROPERIETORS Vs. PRABHAKAR RAMBHAUJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner - employer has challenged the common order dated 12-2-2002 delivered by the Industrial Court in seven complaints filed under section 28 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Uions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as MRTU and PULP Act). Those seven complainants are respondents in these seven writ petitions before this Court. They claimed permanency and consequential benefits as per provisions of Model Standing Orders after completion of 240 days and pointed out that by not extending them the said benefits, the petitioner - employer has indulged in unfair labour practice falling under Item 9 of Schedule IV of Act No. I of 1972. Said item makes failure to implement award, settlement, agreement etc. an unfair labour practise. By the impugned order, the learned Member of Industrial Court has declared that the petitioner has engaged in unfair labour practice under item 9, Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act and accordingly has directed that the complainants be made permanent from the date on which they completed 240 days of continuous service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) It is not in dispute that these complaints were filed on 19-10-1996 and thereafter the complainants filed application under section 30(2) claiming minimum wages as per provisions of Minimum Wages Act. Those applications were rejected on 29-4-1998. Thereafter, the complainants sought amendment in their ULP Complaints pointing out termination of their services with effect from 1-5-1998. The employer filed written statement and denied relationship of employer and employee. It was stated that all complainants were employees privately engaged by the officers in the employment of the petitioner-employer and on some occasions they might have visited the establishment in connection with domestic work of said officer. It was contended that the petitioner never recruited any such complainant. It was further stated that for filling in the posts with it, the vacancies are advertised, applications are invited and after interview, the successful candidate is given appointment order in writing. As this procedure was not followed in the case of respondents, none of them was in fact in employment of present petitioner.

(3.) With this defence, the petitioner filed applications for dismissal of complaint on the ground that as the employer and employee relationship was in dispute, the Industrial Court could not have entertained ULP Complaint at all. That application was rejected and when matter came before this Court, on 27-11-2002 in view of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vividh Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steels Ltd., reported at (2001) 2 SCC 381, and as also judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena, reported at 2002(1) Mh.L.J. 559 = 2002(I) LLJ 380, the learned Single Judge allowed all those petitions. The complainants then filed LPA No. 172 of 2003 to 178 of 2003 and the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 13-7-2007 allowed those Letters Patent Appeals and restored the matter back before the Industrial Court for scrutiny of remaining controversy. It is stated at the bar that this judgment of Division Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court but then the Hon'ble Apex Court did not grant such leave. It is also mentioned that after said rejection by the Hon. Apex Court, a review was filed before the Division Bench of this Court and rejection of that review was also assailed in SLP again, which came to be rejected.