Bombay High Court
Rameshkumar Kisan Ghule And ... vs M/S Speciality Polyfilms Pvt Ltd ... on 3 August, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2007 OF 2016
1. Rameshkumar Kisan Ghule,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
2. Dattu Sudam Pawar,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
3. Anil Vasant Pawar,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
4. Sahebrao Nathu Patil,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
5. Kiran Ishwar Mahajan,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
6. Subhash Ishwar Mahajan,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
7. Sanjay Ramnath Rane,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
8. Sunil Ganesh Matlabe,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
khs/AUGUST 2016/2007-d
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:33:12 :::
2
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
9. Prakash Sakharam Sale,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
10. Raju Goma Buwade,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
11. Prakash Kisanrao Borade,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
12. Sukhdeo Haribhau Kharat,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
13. Parmeshwar Sakharam Warpe,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
14. Bharat Mugaji Waghmare,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
15. Santosh Gorakshnath Shisode,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
16. Shivaji Vitthal Sonwane,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
khs/AUGUST 2016/2007-d
::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:33:12 :::
3
17. Rahul Bhika Choudary,
Age-Major, Occu-Service,
PETITIONERS
R/o C/o Bakwal Nagar, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad.
VERSUS
1. M/s Speciality Polyfilms (I) Pvt.Ltd.,
F-89, MIDC Area, Waluj,
Aurangabad, Dist.Aurangabad,
Through its Factory Manager,
2. Aurangabad Multiservices,
101/102, Akshaydeep Plaza,
9, Town Center, Jalna Road,
Aurangabad,
Through its Proprietor RESPONDENTS
Mr.T.K.Prabhakaran, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.B.R.Kawre, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr.Y.R.Marlapalle, Advocate for respondent No.2/Intervenor.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 03/08/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2. The petitioners/employees are aggrieved by the order dated
02/12/2015 passed by the Industrial Court, Aurangabad, whereby
an application Exh.C-8 filed by respondent No.2 herein seeking
intervention in Complaint (ULP) No.102/2010, has been allowed.
khs/AUGUST 2016/2007-d
3. The strenuous submissions of Mr.Prabhakaran, learned
Advocate for the petitioners, can be summarized as under :-
[a] The petitioners, who are original complainants, have not arrayed
the intervenor and have not levelled any allegations against it,
much less, put forth any prayers for seeking relief against the
intervenor.
[b] The case of the petitioners is that they are the employees of
respondent No.1 / Industry and they have been consistently
working on the manufacturing process / core activities of the
said Industry.
[c] The details of the work performed by them, have been
mentioned below paragraph No.2 of the complaint, extensively.
[d] Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in
the matter of Vividh Kamgar Sabha Vs. Kalyani Steels Limited,
reported in 2001[1] CLR 532 and in the matter of Cipla Limited
Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, reported in 2001 LLR
page 305 = 2001(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.) 822 : (2001) 2 SCC 381 , the
Industrial Court, which is presently dealing with the
preliminary issues framed, will have to see as to whether the
respondent/Industry has created a camouflage by setting up
respondent No.2 / Contractor so as to defeat the claims of the
petitioners.
[e] In the event, the Industrial Court concludes that employer /
employee relationship is not visible between the petitioner and
the respondent / Industry, the pending complaint would be
dismissed in view of the above Apex Court orders.
[f] The Industrial Court is not required to scrutinize at this stage
as to whether the petitioners are the employees of respondent
khs/AUGUST 2016/2007-d
No.2 / Contractor.
[g] The respondent/Industry can always lead evidence and produce
respondent No.2 / Contractor as it's witness and attempt to
prove that there is no relationship between the petitioners and
the respondent/Industry.
[h] The petitioners are the masters of their complaint and if the
complaint suffers either for non-joinder or mis-joinder of
parties, the petitioners are willing to take the risk.
4.
Mr.Kawre, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1/Industry
submits that the entire record with regard to the petitioners lies with
respondent No.2/Contractor. The documents are in the exclusive
custody of respondent No.2 Author of the documents has to prove
the documents before the Court. Addition of respondent No.2 would
not cause any hardship or grave injustice to the petitioners.
5. Mr.Marlapalle, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent No.2 / Contractor submits that there is employer /
employee relationship between the petitioners and respondent No.2 /
Contractor. They had applied for contractual employment with
respondent No.2/Contractor. Documents with regard to their
interviews and selection as "Contract Labourers" is with respondent
No.2. Personal details and documents with regard to payment of
salaries, PF contributions are in its custody. Presence of respondent
khs/AUGUST 2016/2007-d
No.2 would assist the Industrial Court in deciding as to whether the
complaint would be maintainable or not.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.
7. There is no dispute that the petitioners have not made any
averments or prayers against respondent No.2 / Contractor. It is
obvious that such claims or prayers could not have been put forth by
the petitioners since the complaint would have been rendered
untenable in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matters of Kalyani Steels and Cipla Limited (supra).
8. It is given to understand that the Industrial Court is presently
dealing with the issue of the maintainability of the complaint.
Naturally, the contention of the petitioners in paragraph No.2
onwards of its complaint, as regards working on the main
manufacturing processes, will also have to be scrutinized by the
Industrial Court while deciding whether there was any supervision,
control or direction over the petitioners by the respondent / Industry
in their day to day activities.
9. An interlocutory order is assailed before this Court. The
khs/AUGUST 2016/2007-d
addition of respondent No.2 would not cause any detriment or
inconvenience to the petitioners for the reason that the purported
documents with regard to the selection and contractual appointment
of the petitioners, could also be scrutinized by the Industrial Court
while deciding the preliminary issues.
10. I am not required to deal with the merits of the rival
contentions of the parties in this judgment so as to avoid any
observations on their respective claims. Nevertheless, the
satisfaction of the Industrial Court with regard to the assistance that
may be rendered by the addition of the party, does not require an
interference unless the conclusion of the Industrial Court is perverse
or erroneous.
11. The issue before the Industrial Court is peculiar. The Industrial
/ Labour Courts frequently deal with such issues in the light of the
view taken by the Apex Court in Kalyani Steels and Cipla judgment
(supra), which are followed by several other judgments. A claim of
the workers would be entertained by the Court under the MRTU and
PULP Act, 1971 only if it is against the employer. In short, the
exercise of searching as to who is the actual employer, is not to be
undertaken by the Court under the Act of 1971 in view of the Apex
khs/AUGUST 2016/2007-d
Court judgments.
12. As such, since I have observed that the Industrial Court will
also consider the effect of the petitioners working in the
manufacturing process of the respondent / Industry, provided it is so
established, I do not find that any interference is called for in this
matter. Needless to state, the addition of respondent No.2/
Contractor shall not lead to unnecessary delay in the proceedings
before the Industrial Court and it is expected that the added
respondent shall assist the Industrial Court in whatever form as it
may think proper without causing delay in the adjudicatory process.
13. As such, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/AUGUST 2016/2007-d
