http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3375  of  1998

PETITIONER: VIVIDH KAMGAR SABHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KALYANI STEELS LTD.  & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/01/2001

BENCH: S.N.Variava, S.R.Babu

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J       J U D G M E N T S.  N.  VARIAVA, J.

     This  Appeal  is  against  an   Order  passed  by  the Industrial  Court on 20th August, 1996.  Briefly stated  the facts  are  as follows:  The Appellants claim to be a  Union representing   the   workmen  of  a  Canteen  run   by   the Respondents.   The Appellant Union claimed that even  though the   Appellants   are  actually   the  employees   of   the Respondents,  the  Respondents are not treating them at  par with other employees and have notionally engaged contractors to  run the canteen.  As the Respondents were not  accepting the  Appellants’ claim to treat them as their employees, the Appellant  filed  a  Complaint under Section  28(1)  of  the Maharashtra  Recognition  of  Trade Unions &  Prevention  of Unfair  Labour  Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter called  the MRTU  & PULP Act) alleging that the Respondents had  engaged in  unfair labour practices under Item Nos.  1, 1(a),  1(b), 4,  4(a)  of Schedule II and Items 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and  10  of Schedule  IV of the MRTU & PULP Act.  This Complaint came to be  dismissed by the impugned Order dated 20th August, 1996. The  Appellant Union has filed an SLP directly in this Court against  this Order as the High Court of Bombay, in the case of  Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sangathana v.  S.  V.   Naik reported  in  (1993) 1 CLR Page 1002, has already held  that the Industrial Court cannot in a complaint under MRTU & PULP Act  abolish  contract labour and treat employees as  direct employees  of  the  company.   At  this  stage  it  must  be mentioned  that  this Court has also in the case of  Central@@                                      JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Labour  Union (Red Flag) Bombay v.  Ahmedabad Mfg.  & Calico@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Printing  Co.  Ltd.  and Ors.  reported in (1995) 2 LLJ 765, held  that  where the workmen have not been accepted by  the Company  to  be its employees, then no complaint  would  lie under  the  MRTU & PULP Act.  We are in full agreement  with the above mentioned view.  The provisions of MRTU & PULP Act can  only be enforced by persons who admittedly are workmen. If  there  is  dispute  as  to  whether  the  employees  are employees  of  the Company, then that dispute must first  be got  resolved  by raising a dispute before  the  appropriate forum.   It  is  only  after  the status  as  a  workmen  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

established  in an appropriate Forum that a complaint  could be made under the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act.  Faced with this  situation it was submitted that the Respondent Company had  always recognised the members of the Appellant Union to be  their own workmen.  It is submitted that a formal denial was  taken only to defeat the claim.  We see no substance in this  submission.   In  the written statement  it  has  been categorically denied that the members of the Appellant Union were  employees of the Respondent Company.  The question has been  agitated before the Industrial Court.  The  Industrial Court has given a finding, on facts, that the members of the Appellant  Union  were  not   employees  of  the  Respondent Company.   This  is  a  disputed  fact  and  thus  till  the Appellants  or their members, get the question decided in  a proper   forum,  this  complaint   was   not   maintainable. Accordingly,  we dismiss this Appeal on the ground that  the complaint  was not maintainable.  We clarify that it is open for  the Appellant or their members to raise dispute in this behalf  before  an  appropriate   forum  provided  they  are entitled  to do so.  If they get a declaration to the effect that  they are employees of the Respondent Company, then  it may  be  open to them to file such a complaint.  It is  also clarified  that if a dispute as to their status is raised in an appropriate forum then the same will be decided on merits without  taking into consideration any observations made  or finding given by the Industrial Court in the impugned Order.