S.N.VARIAVA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is against an order passed by the Industrial Court on 20th August, 1996.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are as follows: The appellants claim to be a Union representing the workmen of a canteen run by the respondents. The appellant -Union claimed that even though the appellants are actually the employees of the respondents, the respondents are not treating them at par with other employees and have notionally engaged contractors to run the canteen. As the respondents were not accepting the appellants ' claim to treat them as their employees, the appellant filed a complaint under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the MRTU & PULP Act) alleging that the respondents had engaged in unfair labour practices under Item Nos.1, 1(a), 1(b), 4, 4(a) of Schedule II and Items 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. This complaint came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 20th August, 1996. The appellant -Union has filed an SLP directly in this Court against this order as the High Court of Bombay, in the case of Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sangathana v. S.V. Naik reported in 1993 I CLR Page 1002, has already held that the Industrial Court cannot in a complaint under MRTU & PULP Act abolish contract labour and treat employees as direct employees of the company.
(3.) AT this stage it must be mentioned that this Court has also in the case of Central Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay v. Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. and Ors.reported in 1995 II LLJ 765, held that where the workmen have not been accepted by the company to be its employees, then no complaint would lie under the MRTU & PULP Act. We are in full agreement with the abovementioned view.;