Bombay High Court
Shramik Kamgar Sena vs Daibu Automotive Seat India Pvt Ltd on 13 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AS:32789
Urmila Ingale 906-wp-11264-24.docx
URMILA by
Digitally signed
URMILA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRAMOD
PRAMOD INGALE
INGALE 15:13:23
Date: 2024.08.16
+0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11264 OF 2024
Shramik Kamgar Sena .. Petitioner
Versus
Daibu Automotive Seat India Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar B. Deore a/w Ms.Sunita J. Pawar and Mr.Jitendra
K. Pagare, for the Petitioner.
...................
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : AUGUST 13, 2024
P. C.:
1. The challenge in the present Petition is to the orders dated 31 st
July 2024 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nashik by
which the application filed by the Respondent-Employer at Exhibit 'C-
7' challenging the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is allowed holding
that the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint. By
a separate order passed on 31 st July 2024, the application for interim
relief at Exhibit 'U-2' has been rejected.
2. Perusal of the impugned orders would indicate that the finding of
fact is recorded that the members of the Petitioner-Union are employed
by the Respondent-Employer through a Contractor named M/s. Trident
Services. Even Mr. Deore has submitted that though initially the
1 of 3
Urmila Ingale 906-wp-11264-24.docx
workers were directly engaged in the services of the Respondent
Company, since the month of March 2024, their wages are deliberately
routed through the Contractor M/s.Trident Services. Mr.Deore has
submitted that the said arrangement is deliberately done only on
account of raising of demands by the Petitioner-Union about service
conditions of the concerned workers. Be that as it may. As there is an
allegation that members of Union are being routed through a
Contractor, the finding recorded by the Industrial Court about absence
of employer-employee relationship cannot really be faulted. It is well
settled law expounded by judgment of the Apex Court in Cipla Ltd. Vs.
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (2001) 3 SCC 101 and Sarva
Shramik Sangh Vs. Indian Smelting and Refining Co.Ltd. (2003) 10
SCC 455 that once the employer-employee relationship is under
dispute, complaint of unfair labour practice cannot be entertained by the
Industrial Court under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act , 1971. In
that view of the matter, no fault can be found in the orders passed by the
Industrial Court.
3. If the Petitioner-Union believes that its members are direct
workers of the Respondent-Employer, they would be at liberty to raise
an industrial dispute seeking a declaration that the contractual
arrangement made by the employer is sham and bogus. All question in
this regard are kept open. It would also be open for the Petitioner-
Union to pray for appropriate interim reliefs in the Reference, as and
when made.
2 of 3
Urmila Ingale 906-wp-11264-24.docx
4. In the event the Petitioner-Union makes a demand before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, he shall act upon the same in an
expeditious manner and in the event of failure of the conciliation
proceedings, an order on Reference be made in an expeditious manner.
5. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
[ SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ]
3 of 3
