Bombay High Court
Suman Ganesh Jadahv And Others vs M/S Laxmi Metal Pressing Works Pvt ... on 3 February, 2021
Bench: R. G. Avachat
Writ Petition No.13399/2018
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.13399 OF 2021
1) Suman w/o Ganesh Jadhav,
Age 37 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o At Post Ranjangaon (Shenpunji)
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad
2) Shobha w/o Rajaratan Kamble,
Age 36 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o At Post Ranjangaon (Shenpunji)
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad
3) Kalpana w/o Tejrao Dabhade,
Age 38 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o At Post Ranjangaon (Shenpunji)
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad
4) Vandana w/o Ramchandra Jadhav,
Age 37 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o At Post Ranjangaon (Shenpunji)
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad ... PETITIONERS
(Orig. Complainants)
VERSUS
M/s Laxmi Metal Pressing Works Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No.E-77, Waluj MIDC, Waluj,
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad
Through its Authorised Signatory,
Shri Haridas s/o Shrirang Malve
Age 57 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Aurangabad ... RESPONDENT
(Orig. Respondent)
.......
Shri Ashok A. More, Advocate for petitioners
Shri S.S. Vidwans, Advocate for respondent
.......
::: Uploaded on - 05/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/02/2021 22:46:33 :::
Writ Petition No.13399/2018
:: 2 ::
CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT, J.
DATED : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2021
JUDGMENT:
The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the
judgment and order dated 1/8/2018, passed by Industrial
Court at Aurangabad in Revision (ULP) No.78/2014. By the
impugned judgment and order, the order dated 22/9/2014,
passed by Labour Court-II, Aurangabad allowing the
Complaint (ULP) No.8/2009 was set aside. The respondent is
a private limited company. The learned Judge of Labur Court
had declared that the respondent orally terminated services of
the petitioners and it amounted to unfair labour practice
within the meaning of Item 1(a) of Schedule IV of the
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of
Unfair Labour Practices Act (MRTU & PULP Act for short). The
respondent - Company was directed to reinstate all the
petitioners with continuity in service and back wages from the
date of their oral termination.
2. Mr. More, learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that, the Industrial Court has travelled beyond the
scope of its revisional jurisdiction. It has decided the
application like an appeal. He took me through the judgment
Writ Petition No.13399/2018
:: 3 ::
of the Labour Court and submitted the same having been
passed consistent with the evidence in the case. According to
him, the MRTU & PULP Act is a welfare legislation. Provisions
of, if capable of two constructions, one which further the
policy and object of the Act and which is more beneficial to
the employees should be preferred. The learned counsel has
relied on judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Colour-
Chem Ltd. Vs. A.L. Alaspurkar & others reported in (1998) 3
SCC 192 and submitted for allowing the Writ petition.
3. Mr. Vidwans, learned counsel for the respondent
would, on the other hand, submit that, except bare words of
the petitioners/ complainants, there was no evidence in
support of their claim. The respondent Company produced
before the Labour Court evidence to show the petitioners/
complainants were engaged through contract labour. It was
the Labour Contractor who paid them their wages and
deposited contributions towards E.S.I. and E.P.F. Learned
counsel reiterated the reasons given by the Industrial Court
for setting aside the judgment and order passed by the
Labour Court.
4. I have considered the rival submissions, perused
the judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below.
Writ Petition No.13399/2018
:: 4 ::
Admittedly, except bare words of the petitioners/
complainants, there was nothing to indicate the respondent
Company to have had engaged them in its service. On the
other hand, the respondent Company examined the witnesses
(employees) of M/s Mauli Enterprises, Contract Labour Agency
to show the petitioners/ complainants were engaged as
contract labours. The petitioners did not produce on record
their appointment orders, pay bills, attendance sheets etc.
On the other hand, the respondent Company produced
documentary evidence to show that the Labour Contractor
paid the wages of the petitioners and contributed for their
E.S.I. and E.P.F. True, M/s Mauli Enterprises was not a
registered Labour Contractor. No labour agreement was
executed between it and the respondent Company. The
learned Judge of the Industrial Court, placing reliance on the
judgment in case of M.M.T.C. Ltd. Vs. The learned Fourth
Industrial Tribunal (2016-LLR-292) (Calcutta High Court) and
Employees in relation of Management of Bhagban Colliery of
M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen, represented
by Sri D. Mukherjee Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union (2015-LLR-
277), observed that the said lapse would at the most invite
penal consequence, but the petitioners could not be held to be
the employees of the respondent Company.
Writ Petition No.13399/2018
:: 5 ::
5. There can be no two views over what has been
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis
of Apex Court judgment in case of Colour-Chem Ltd. (supra).
The facts of the present case, however, indicate that except
the oral evidence of the petitioners, there was nothing to infer
them to have been engaged by the respondent Company and
they have completed 240 days of service for being entitled to
be recognized as permanent employees. Since day one of the
commencement of the dispute, the respondent Company
denied the employer-employee relationship. It produced on
record evidence to prove the petitioners/ complainants to
have been engaged through a labour contractor.
6. In my view, the Industrial Court has rightly set
aside the judgment and order passed by the Labour Court in
Complaint (ULP) No.68/2009. No interference, in exercise of
writ jurisdiction, is called for with the impugned judgment and
order. The Writ Petition, therefore, fails. It is dismissed.
( R. G. AVACHAT )
JUDGE
fmp/-
