Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M.G. Bhide, filed a complaint before the Industrial Court at Pune under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act), alleging that respondent no.1, M/s. Britannia Industries Ltd., had engaged in unfair labour practices under Items 5, 6, 9, and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. He claimed that he was appointed as a salesman by the respondent company on 1 July 1986, but no appointment order was issued. He asserted that he was in continuous employment on a monthly salary of Rs.1200 plus conveyance allowance, working under the strict supervision of the company at Pune. He sought a declaration that he was a permanent employee entitled to wages and allowances. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the petitioner failed to prove an employer-employee relationship with the respondent company. The court found that the petitioner was engaged through a contractor, respondent no.2 (Mayur Trading Company), and that the respondent company had no direct control over him. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Industrial Court's order dated 25 April 1996. The High Court, after hearing counsel, noted that the petition was essentially under Article 227 and the scope of interference was limited. The court examined the evidence and found that the petitioner had not produced any documentary proof of appointment or control by the respondent company. The Industrial Court's finding that the petitioner was not a workman of the respondent company was based on evidence and could not be termed perverse. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practices - Burden of Proof - MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, Schedule IV Items 5,6,9,10 - The petitioner claimed to be a permanent employee of the respondent company but failed to produce any documentary evidence of appointment or control by the company. The Industrial Court held that the petitioner was engaged through a contractor and no employer-employee relationship existed with the respondent company. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the burden to prove the relationship was on the petitioner and he did not discharge it. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Scope of Interference - The petition under Articles 226 and 227 sought to quash the Industrial Court's order. The court, following Lokmat Newspapers Private Limited v. Shankarprasad, held that the petition was essentially under Article 227 and the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or perversity, not reappreciating evidence. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was a workman and permanent employee of the respondent company, and whether the respondent company engaged in unfair labour practices.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 25.4.1996.
Law Points
- Burden of proof of employer-employee relationship lies on the claimant
- MRTU and PULP Act
- 1971
- Schedule IV Items 5
- 6
- 9
- 10
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Lokmat Newspapers Private Limited v. Shankarprasad
