4.The Labour Court found that the appointment letter as also
salary slips produced by the complainant-workman showed that the
appointment, as also payment of salary, was by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
herein. The court noted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein had
produced a copy of licence granted to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and that
it was, accordingly, clear that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein were
contractors of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, registered as such with the
authority under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970, who had engaged the services of the complainant. The Labour
Court also noted that Respondent No.4, who was the proprietor of
Respondent No.3 herein, had also deposed in the witness box that the
complainant used to work under his supervision as a sample maker and
that it was Respondent No.3, who had appointed the complainant. The
court also noted that the complainant himself in his cross-examination
had admitted that he had joined employment with Respondent No.3 and
lastly worked with it on the date of his termination. On these facts, and
after taking into account settled law on the subject, the Labour Court
came to a conclusion that whenever there was a dispute about employer-
employee relationship between the parties, a complaint under MRTU &
PULP Act was not maintainable. The court noted that the argument that
the purported contract was a camouflage could not be countenanced on
the basis of the law laid down in the case of Cipla Ltd. vs. Maharashtra
General Kamager Union1. The court, in the premises, held that no unfair
labour practice could be claimed against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
herein.
