Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ petition filed by Sairam Natural Gas And Oil Corporation and another (petitioners) challenging an order of the Industrial Court at Mumbai. The respondent, Maharashtra Employees Union, had filed a complaint of unfair labour practices under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1947 (the Act), alleging harassment of fifteen named employees by the petitioners. The petitioners raised a preliminary objection that the employees were not their direct employees but were employed through a labour contractor, Sheetal Pest Management Services, under a contract dated 12 March 2010. The Industrial Court initially rejected the union's application for interim relief but framed a preliminary issue on the existence of an employer-employee relationship. After allowing the parties to lead evidence, the Industrial Court held that the fifteen employees were direct employees of the petitioners and that the union had proved an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The petitioners challenged this order in the High Court. The High Court, after hearing arguments, dismissed the petition, holding that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to decide the preliminary issue and that its finding was based on evidence and not perverse. The court noted that the Industrial Court had correctly allowed the parties to lead evidence and that the union had discharged its burden of proof. The petition was dismissed, and the Industrial Court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Preliminary Issue of Employer-Employee Relationship - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1947, Schedule IV Item 9 - The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to decide the preliminary issue of existence of employer-employee relationship. The court held that the Industrial Court correctly framed the issue and allowed evidence, and the finding that fifteen employees were direct employees of the petitioners was based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 5-6)
B) Industrial Law - Burden of Proof - Unfair Labour Practice Complaint - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1947 - The burden to establish employer-employee relationship lies on the complainant union. The Industrial Court held that the union had discharged its burden by producing evidence showing direct employment. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to decide the preliminary issue of employer-employee relationship and whether the finding that the employees were direct employees of the petitioners was correct.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order that the fifteen employees were direct employees of the petitioners and that an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act was proved.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Industrial Court to decide preliminary issue of employer-employee relationship
- Burden of proof in unfair labour practice complaints
- Interpretation of Item 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (06) 53
WRIT PETITION NO.6309 OF 2017
Mr. Avinash K. Jalisatgi a/w Mr. Amol B. Desai I/b T.R. Yadav for the Petitioners, Mr. Arshad Shaikh I/b Mr. Prashant Goyal for Respondent
Sairam Natural Gas And Oil Corporation and Another
Maharashtra Employees Union
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order of the Industrial Court on a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of an unfair labour practice complaint.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the Industrial Court's order that held the employees were direct employees and that an unfair labour practice was proved.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the employees named in the complaint were not their employees but were employed by a labour contractor.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court had rejected the union's application for interim relief but later framed a preliminary issue and, after evidence, held that the employees were direct employees and that an unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV was proved.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to decide the preliminary issue of employer-employee relationship.
Whether the finding that the employees were direct employees of the petitioners was correct.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the employees were not their direct employees but were employed by Sheetal Pest Management Services under a labour contract.
The respondent union relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Cipla Ltd and argued that the Industrial Court's finding was based on evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Court has jurisdiction to decide the preliminary issue of employer-employee relationship in an unfair labour practice complaint. The burden of proof lies on the complainant union, and if the union produces evidence showing direct employment, the court can find the relationship established. The finding of fact by the Industrial Court, based on evidence, is not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse.
Judgment Excerpts
The Industrial Court even allowed the parties to lead evidence on this issue and finally, in its impugned order, held that the evidence produced before it showed that fifteen employees named in the complaint were in fact direct employees of the Petitioners and the complainant union had discharged its burden to establish the relationship of employer and employee between the parties.
Mr. Shaikh, learned Counsel for the Respondent union, relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cipla Ltd Vs. ...
Procedural History
The respondent union filed a complaint of unfair labour practices before the Industrial Court. The petitioners raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability. The Industrial Court rejected the interim relief application but framed a preliminary issue on employer-employee relationship. After evidence, the Industrial Court held the relationship existed and partly allowed the complaint. The petitioners challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1947: Schedule II Items 1(a), (b) and 6, Schedule IV Items 9 and 10
