Disposed

Ahmednagar Zilla Shetmajur Union v. Mahatma Phule Krushi Vidyapith and Others

Bombay HC9 Dec 2016WP/4354/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court held that a complaint filed by a recognized trade union for contract labourers seeking wage parity against a university establishment was not maintainable under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Act. The Court ruled that the recognized union represents only regular employees and directed the parties to pursue the matter under the Contract Labour (Reg

What did the court decide?

Held that the complaint was not tenable before the Industrial Court under the Maharashtra ULP Act and the matter must be pursued under the CLRA Act or ID Act.

Ahmednagar Zilla Shetmajur Union Vs Mahatma… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP/4354/2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4354 OF 2014

¶5

Ahmednagar Zilla Shetmajur Union, Trade Union Centre, Tahsil Offic Road, ward No.1, Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar through its Secretary.

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mahatma Phule Krushi Vidyapith, Rahuri, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar Through Vice Chancellor.

¶9

Anil Bhausaheb Daud Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Pimpri Avghad, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶10

Gorakh Savleram Pawar, Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Pimpri Avghad, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶11

Bapusaheb Murlidhar Wadekar Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Pimpri Avghad, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶12

Shamsunder Gangaram Kolekar Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Pimpri Avghad, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶13

Bapusaheb Shivaji Patare Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Pimpri Avghad, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶14

Parasram Raghunath Tambe Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Pimpri Avghad, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶15

WP/4354/2014

¶16

¶17

Ashok Bhagwan Chavan, Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Gotumbe Akhada, Post Rahuri Kd. Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶18

Natha Yashwant Chaudhari Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Gotumbe Akhada, Post Rahuri Kd. Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶19

Govind Bhimaji Patole Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Gotumbe Akhada, Post Rahuri Kd. Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶20

Mhalu Anshabapu Kolpe, Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Vilad Pimpri, Tq. Nagar, District Ahmednagar.

¶21

Chand Rashul Pathan Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Sade, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶22

Guljar Chand Shaikh Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Sade, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶23

Suryakant Rambhau Pansambal Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Sade, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶24

Bajirao Shankar Kalhapure Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Khadambe, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶25

Ashok Tukaram Pale Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Khadambe, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶26

Raju keru Harischandre Age Major, Occ. Contractor,

¶27

WP/4354/2014

¶28

¶29

R/o At Post Khadambe, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶30

Padma Namdeo Gayke Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Khadambe, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. (Deleted).

¶31

Kashinath Namdeo Tonde Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Khadambe, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶32

Dnyandeo Vitthal Pale Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Khadambe, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶33

Bajirao Kashinath Jadhav, Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Waghacha Akhada, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶34

Laxman Sahadu Dhasal Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Waghacha Akhada, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶35

Bhausaheb Mahipati Kohkade Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Bargaon Nandur, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶36

Machindra Mukinda Dhanwade Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Bargaon Nandur, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶37

Dadasaheb Machindra Bhore Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Rahuri Khurd, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶38

Balasheb Tabaji Mandlik Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Digras, Post Krushi

¶39

WP/4354/2014

¶40

¶41

Vidyapith, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶42

Gopinath Trimbak Kopnar Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Tamnar Akhada, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶43

Sopan Changdeo Dethe Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Mula Nagar, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶44

Krushna Ramchandra Patare Age Major, Occ. Contractor, R/o At Post Wambori, Tq. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar.

¶45

..Respondents

¶46

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Barde Parag Vijay Advocate for Respondent 1 : Shri Shahane P.L. Advocate for Respondents 2 to 17 and 19 to 29 : Shri Ostwal A.D. Respondent 18 : Deleted

¶47

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. Dated: December 09, 2016

¶48

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶49

Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

¶50

Rule.

¶51

By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶52

WP/4354/2014

¶53

¶54

I have heard the submissions of Shri Barde, learned Advocate for the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the dismissal of its Complaint (ULP) No. 23 of 2010, Shri Ostwal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 29 and Shri Shahane learned Advocate for respondent 1, who submits that the complaint is untenable in law.

¶55

After considering the strenuous submissions of the learned Advocates, I find that the following legal issues have to beconsidered and dealt with while considering the claim of the petitioner which is undisputedly a recognized Union with the respondent No.1 / University:-

¶56

(A) The petitioner / Union is granted recognition under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“the said Act ”) only to the extent of respondent No.1 establishment.

¶57

(B) The cause of the workers for whom the Union had filed Complaint (ULP) No.23 of 2010 are said to be contract labourers who have been deployed in the respondent No.1 / establishment by respondent Nos.2 to 29 / Labour contractors.

¶58

(C) Whether, the benefits of the award delivered in Reference (IDA) No. 48 of 1981, dated 31.12.1984, is still in force and continues to cover regular employees of the Agriculture University?

¶59

WP/4354/2014

¶60

¶61

(D) Whether, the petitioner / recognized Union can represent contract labourers, deployed by the Contractors with the respondent / University when they have no right to seek continued service only in the respondent / University?

¶62

(E) Whether, the recognition being restricted to a particular establishment, would entitle the recognized Union to induct contract labourers as it's members who have no right to work only in the respondent / University ?

¶63

(F) Whether, by virtue of documents, which are marked as Exhibit “X” for identification, filed by the recognised Union would indicate that the Contractors are also working as contract labourers under their own contract and are paying monthly wages to themselves?

¶64

(G) Whether Respondent Nos.2 to to 29 could be termed as being sham and bogus contractors?

¶65

(H) Whether, in order to seek parity in wages in comparison to the regular workers of the Agriculture University, the contract labourers could prefer proceedings through a recognized Union against the Agriculture University establishment?

¶66

There is no dispute that the Industrial Court did not consider all the above mentioned aspects while dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner / Union. In my view, considering the element of legal relationship between the recognized Union and the Agriculture University, the demand of parity in wages by contract labourers

¶67

WP/4354/2014

¶68

¶69

through a recognized Union, who is granted recognition on behalf of the regular workers working in the principal employer's establishment, cannot be gone into under the the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "the said Act").

¶70

When the recognition of the Union is with regard to the membership of the regular workman of the establishment, the demand of contract labourers espoused through the recognized Union and that too under the said Act, would not be entertainable as the benefits are as per the award dated 31.12.1984, which, under the Industrial Disputes Act, can be said to be applicable to those employees of the Agriculture University.

¶71

Considering the peculiar facts as above, I find that either the contract labourers will have to raise an industrial dispute before the competent authority under the CLRA Act for seeking equal wages from the Contractor being paid to the regular employees of the Agriculture University. For the said purpose a Complaint (ULP) would not be maintainable. Though this aspect has not been dealt with by the Industrial Court, I find this to be a serious legal impediment and in my view, the Industrial Court could not have entertained the complaint under the 1971 Act.

¶72

WP/4354/2014

¶73

¶74

Suffice it to say, considering the effect of the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph No.5 of the Vividh Kamgar Sabha Vs. Kalyani Steel [(2001) 2 SCC 381], paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of Cipla Limited Vs. Maharashtra General Kamgar [(2001) 3 SCC 101], and Steel Authority of India Limited and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and others [2001 III CLR 349], the issue needs to be dealt with, either under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (“CLRA Act”) and/or under the ID Act. The impugned judgment, therefore, would not come in way of these contract labourers, considering my view that the complaint could not have been entertained by the Industrial Court.

¶75

Shri Barde has relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjitsingh and others 2016 SCC Online SC 1200. Considering the above, he would always be at liberty to place reliance upon the said judgment at the appropriate stage before the appropriate authority.

¶76

In the result, this petition is disposed off by concluding that Complaint (ULP) No.23 of 2010 was not tenable before the Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The contract labourers and/or the petitioner / recognized Union may raise an appropriate grievance under the ID Act and/or CLRA Act and in the

¶77

WP/4354/2014

¶78

¶79

event it is so done, the contentions and legal issues raised by all the litigating sides are kept open for adjudication without being influenced by the observations in the impugned judgment, which does not survive in the light of my view that the complaint was untenable.

¶80

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...

¶81

akl/d

Ahmednagar Zilla Shetmajur Union v. Mahatma Phule Krushi Vidyapith and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmednagar Zilla Shetmajur Union v. Mahatma Phule Krushi Vidyapith and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagaon Education Society,Nagaon and Ors. Vs Ashok Baburao Patil and Ors.

Jalgoan Muncipal Council. Vs Milind Kashinath Jagtap.

Jalgoan Muncipal Council. Vs Ramesh Dattatrya Shankhlal.

Hind Seva Mandal Education Society and Another Vs Sandip Pandharinath Bhor and Another

Mohammad Abdul Samad Mohammad Multan Died Lrs Badar Unisa Begum Abdul Samad and Others Vs the Nanded District Central Co. Op Bank Ltd. through Its Legal Officer Nanded

Machindra Kundlik Adhav Died Lrs Shobha Machindra Aadhav and Others Vs Trinity Forge Private Limited, Ahmednagar through Its Manager