DURYODHAN HIRAMAN INGOLE Vs. INDIAN COUNCIL AGRICULTURE RESEARCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, six workmen of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 seek quashing and setting aside of the order passed on 8-8-1996 by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Nagpur, and maintained upon revision by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur on 21-3-1997.

(2.) Facts, which led the petitioners to file the present proceedings, are disturbing. The petitioners were appointed in the year 1988-89 by respondent No. 2 as agricultural labourers at Nagpur. Onl-11-1990, there services were terminated orally. On 24-4-1991, they filed complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act (for short, "MRTU & PULP Act") complaining of unfair labour practice before the learned Judge, 2nd Labour Court, Nagpur. On 7-9-1994, temporary reinstatement was granted to the petitioners. On 12-9-1995, revision filed by the employer against the order of reinstatement was dismissed. On 17-1-1996, Writ Petition No. 3133 of 1995 was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to take the petitioners in employment and also directing the Labour Court to decide the complaints within six months. Accordingly, on 25-1-1996, the petitioners were reinstated in service. On 8-8-1996, the Labour Court dismissed the complaints. However, it stayed the order till 31-8-1996. The petitioners approached the Industrial Court, which, however, refused interim relief. On 31-3-1997, the Industrial Court upheld the order of the Labour Court. Hence, on 21-5-1997, the petitioners approached this Court.

(3.) The fact that the petitioners were employed at the respondents' fields as labourers and that they have put in 240 days of continuous service within a period of 12 months preceding the date of termination has not been disputed. However, according to the respondents, the petitioners were not employed by them, but had been made avail-able to them by M/s. Vidarbha Security and Consultancy Service, Nagpur, which paid the wages to the petitioners. It was contended by the respondents that they were a research organization run by or under the authority of the Central Government and, therefore, the appropriate Government for the industrial dispute was the Central Government. It was contended that the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act would, therefore, not be applica-ble and the learned Judge, Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.