Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a biennial election of five employee representatives under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 at the establishment of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. in Nagpur. Fifteen contractual workers, who were engaged through contractors, sought inclusion of their names in the voters list for the election. The Government Labour Officer-cum-Returning Officer, relying on the Division Bench decision in Sunfag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, rejected their objection on the ground that contractual workers are not directly employed by the principal employer. Aggrieved, the workers filed Complaint (ULP) No.143 of 2019 before the Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging that the failure to include their names in the voters list constituted unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV. The Industrial Court rejected their interim relief application but prima facie held the complaint maintainable. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., as the original respondent, then filed applications Exh-C-10 and Exh-C-15 seeking dismissal of the complaint, arguing that there was no employer-employee relationship between the company and the contractual workers, and that the complaint was maintainable only against an employer. The company further contended that the Labour Officer, being an election officer under the MIR Act, was not an employer and therefore not amenable to the Industrial Court's jurisdiction under Sections 28 and 30 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court rejected both applications by a common order, which the petitioner challenged in the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition raised the core questions whether contractual employees could maintain a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act for inclusion in the voters list under the MIR Act, and whether such a complaint could lie against the principal employer or the Labour Officer when neither was the direct employer. The available judgment text contains the factual background, procedural history, and rival submissions but ends before the High Court's final analysis and operative order. Thus, the final decision and ratio decidendi are not available in the extracted portion. The High Court had reserved judgment on 22.07.2021 and pronounced it on 20.09.2021.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Maintainability of ULP Complaint by Contractual Employees - Whether complaint under MRTU & PULP Act is maintainable by contractual workers against principal employer - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Sections 28, 30, Item 9 of Schedule IV; Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Sections 6, 28; Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Sections 7, 13 - The complaint was filed by contractual workers seeking inclusion in voters list for biennial election under Section 28 of MIR Act; the Industrial Court prima facie held it maintainable; the petitioner challenged maintainability asserting no employer-employee relationship; the High Court framed the issue for determination (Paras 3-8).
B) Labour Law - Jurisdiction Over Election Officer Not an Employer - Whether complaint against Government Labour Officer, who is not employer, is maintainable under MRTU & PULP Act and whether Industrial Court has power to direct inclusion of names - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Sections 28, 30; Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946, Section 28 - The petitioner contended that the Labour Officer-cum-Returning Officer is not an employer and the Industrial Court has no supervisory jurisdiction over him; the High Court considered this in the context of maintainability (Paras 9-11, 13).
C) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV - Failure to include contractual workers in voters list as unfair labour practice - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Item 9 of Schedule IV - The complainants alleged that non-inclusion of names amounted to unfair labour practice; petitioner denied any such practice and relied on Sunfag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (2008 III CLR 983) which excluded contract workers from elections under MIR Act; the High Court examined whether the Industrial Court properly appreciated the precedent (Paras 5-6, 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a complaint of contractual employees seeking to exercise their rights, as provided under the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and Bombay Industrial Relations Rules, 1947, is maintainable under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971? Whether contractual employees can file a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 for challenging the impugned order, which is not passed by the Principal Employer?
Law Points
- Complaint under MRTU and PULP Act is maintainable only against an employer
- contractual employees may not have employer-employee relationship with principal employer
- Election Officer under MIR Act is not an employer for purposes of MRTU and PULP Act
- Industrial Court has no power of superintendence over Election Officer
- unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV arises from failure to include names in voters list
- precedent in Sunfag Iron and Steel excluded contract workers from MIR Act elections
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (09) 121
WRIT PETITION (WP) NO.668 OF 2020
Shri. R. B. Puranik, Advocate for the Petitioner; Shri. S. B. Dhande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 to 11 and 13 to 15; Ms. T. H. Khan, Asst. G. P. for the Respondent Nos.16 to 17
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd, Plot No.F-1/F7, MIDC Industrial Area, Hingna Road, Nagpur through its Manager (ER and D)
Satish s/o Tulshiram Burile, Sahebrao s/o Kisanrao Samudre, Umesh s/o Vitthalrao Tidke, Panjabrao s/o Gulabrao Kharat, Ramesh s/o Anandraoji Lodhe, Kamlesh s/o Devidas Adhaoo, Sudhakar s/o Santoshrao Thakre, Homeshwar Baburao Nanwatkar, Shrikant s/o Kisanji Deogade, Ravishekhar s/o Narayan Titare, Bhalchand s/o Baliram Dorle, Ramu s/o Manohar Gajare, Dharmendra s/o Keshaosingh Chavan, Lalit s/o Jagdishrao Anjankar, Manoj s/o Bhagwanji Sawarkar (Respondent Nos.1 to 15); Government Labour Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act; Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the Industrial Court's order rejecting applications seeking dismissal of a complaint filed by contractual workers under the MRTU and PULP Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd) sought quashing of the Industrial Court's common order rejecting its applications Exh-C-10 and Exh-C-15; in those applications, petitioner had sought dismissal of Complaint (ULP) No.143 of 2019 as not maintainable.
Filing Reason
Industrial Court had prima facie held the complaint maintainable and rejected petitioner's applications; petitioner challenged maintainability on grounds that there is no employer-employee relationship with contractual workers and the Government Labour Officer is not amenable to jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court rejected interim relief application (Exh-U-2) on 08.07.2019 but prima facie held complaint maintainable; later rejected applications Exh-C-10 and Exh-C-15 by common order, which is impugned.
Issues
Whether a complaint of contractual employees seeking to exercise their rights, as provided under the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and Bombay Industrial Relations Rules, 1947, is maintainable under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971?
Whether contractual employees can file a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 for challenging the impugned order, which is not passed by the Principal Employer?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and contractual workers; complainants are not employees of petitioner, hence cannot file ULP complaint.
Petitioner contended that a complaint of unfair labour practice is maintainable only against an employer and the Government Labour Officer-cum-Returning Officer is not an employer, therefore not amenable to Industrial Court jurisdiction under Sections 28 and 30 of MRTU & PULP Act.
Petitioner submitted that Industrial Court has no power of superintendence over the Labour Officer, and no direction can be given to include names in voters list because petitioner has no power to finalise voters list; that power vests solely with the Labour Officer.
Petitioner asserted that no case for unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV is made out and that the decision in Sunfag Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) has not been properly appreciated by the Industrial Court.
Respondent contractual workers alleged that non-inclusion of their names in the voters list amounted to unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV and sought direction to include names of all contractual employees in the voters list for biennial election under Section 28 of MIR Act read with Rule 40 of BIR Rules.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether a complaint of contractual employees seeking to exercise their rights, as provided under the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and Bombay Industrial Relations Rules, 1947, is maintainable under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ?
The Industrial Court rejected the application (Exh-U-2), but prima facie held that the complaint is maintainable and it has jurisdiction to entertain it.
The Petitioner has outsourced its peripheral activities to several contractors and for that purpose, the Petitioner registered itself as the principal employer under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
Procedural History
On 26.06.2019, the Government Labour Officer declared election programme for conducting elections under Section 28 of MIR Act for electing five representatives. Representation dated 22.06.2019 by 301 contract workers to Management seeking addition of names in voters list; Management informed that decision cannot be taken by Management and they should approach Labour Officer or Labour Commissioner. On 27.06.2019, some contractual workers submitted representation to Labour Commissioner, Nagpur. On 28.06.2019, Labour Officer-cum-Returning Officer rejected objection, relying on Sunfag Iron and Steel, stating contractual workers are not directly employed. Contractual workers filed Complaint (ULP) No.143 of 2019 in Industrial Court against petitioner and Government Labour Officer seeking direction to include names in voters list; interim relief application Exh-U-2 filed. Industrial Court rejected Exh-U-2 on 08.07.2019 but prima facie held complaint maintainable. Petitioner filed written statement and reply; on 08.08.2019 moved application Exh-C-10 seeking dismissal of complaint; later moved application Exh-C-15 seeking permission to urge additional grounds. Industrial Court rejected Exh-C-10 and Exh-C-15 by common order, which is impugned in present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946: Section 6, Section 28
- Bombay Industrial Relations Rules, 1947: Rule 40
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 28, Section 30, Item 9 of Schedule IV
- Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970: Section 7, Section 13
- Companies Act, 1956:
