Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Bhalchandra Chavre, filed a complaint under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act) before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, alleging that the respondent, M/s. Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd., had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The petitioner claimed that he was appointed as a workman on or about 1.1.1987, worked for 15 days in 1987, and received wages of Rs.586/- per month from 1.1.1988 onwards. He further stated that he had previously worked with Godavari Sugar Mills (G.S. Mills) from 1963 until its closure in 1986, and after receiving all legal dues, he retained the quarter allotted by G.S. Mills, which was maintained by the respondent. The petitioner alleged that he and 70-80 other former G.S. Mills employees were recruited by the respondent but were treated differently in terms of pay, allowances, bonus, and leave. He claimed to have worked continuously for more than 240 days and demanded arrears of wages in November 1989, after which the respondent stopped providing work from 11.11.1989. The respondent denied all allegations, asserting that the petitioner was not its employee and not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the petitioner failed to prove the employer-employee relationship. The High Court, in the present writ petition, upheld the Industrial Court's order, finding no perversity or error of law. The court noted that the petitioner did not produce sufficient evidence to establish his employment with the respondent, and the mere retention of a quarter or prior service with G.S. Mills did not create an employer-employee relationship. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Burden of Proof - Items 5, 6, 9 of Schedule IV, MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 - The complainant failed to prove that he was an employee of the respondent company. The Industrial Court correctly held that the petitioner did not establish the employer-employee relationship, and therefore, no unfair labour practice was made out. (Paras 1-10) B) Industrial Law - Workman - Definition - Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The petitioner claimed to be a workman but did not produce sufficient evidence of employment with the respondent. The court upheld the finding that the petitioner was not a workman under the Act. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and whether the respondent company indulged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 17.7.1991.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on complainant to establish employee-employer relationship
- Mere retention of quarter does not establish employment
- No presumption of employment from prior service with another entity
