Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maharashtra General Kamgar Mahasangh, a trade union, filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971, alleging that the respondent, M/s Tapan Chatterjee & Co., engaged in unfair labour practices by not providing weekly off, privilege leave, and overtime to 21 workmen employed in connection with hiring out movable generating sets mounted on motor vehicles. The respondent denied that the 21 persons were its employees, asserting that it had ceased business and that the workmen were employed by third parties. The Industrial Court, Mumbai, dismissed the complaint on 20th December 2001, finding that the union failed to prove the employer-employee relationship. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the Industrial Court's findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court noted that the respondent had closed its business and the workmen were not in its employment. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Burden of Proof - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971, Schedule II Item 1, Schedule IV Items 9 and 10 - The complainant union failed to prove that the 21 workmen were employees of the respondent. The Industrial Court found that the respondent had ceased business and the workmen were employed by third parties. The High Court held that the findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse, and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1-3) B) Industrial Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The High Court in writ jurisdiction does not reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The Industrial Court's conclusion that the workmen were not employees of the respondent was upheld. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the 21 workmen named in the complaint were employees of the respondent and whether the respondent indulged in unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 20th December 2001.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish employer-employee relationship
- Unfair labour practice complaint must be based on existing employment relationship
- Industrial Court's findings of fact not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse
