- (1.) THE contesting respondents herein filed a complaint before the Industrial Court at Satara, Maharashtra under S.28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "the MRTUPULP") alleging that the appellant herein by resorting to unfair labour practices violated clauses 5, 6, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Act. The gist of allegations was that these respondents were appointed in the Octroi Department by the appellant Municipal Council, and they had continued to work in that capacity for a long period and were not being regularised, and the respondents sought a relief under S.30 of the Act, The appellant herein filed a counter - affidavit before the Industrial Court and submitted that these respondents were not working under the Council, but they were engaged through a contractor and they being employees of the contractor, they were not entitled to seek regularisation. Large volume of evidence was adduced by the parties. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that these respondents were working, and that they were really employees of the Council. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint with a direction to desist from unfair labour practice and to grant permanent status to the complainants with consequential benefits.
(2.) THIS order passed by the Industrial Court was challenged by the appellant herein before the High Court of Bombay under Art.226 of the Constitution. The High Court without considering the rival contentions raised by parties in detail, dismissed the matter in limine. The appellant had also filed LPA and that too was dismissed. Aggrieved by these two judgments of the High Court, the appellant has filed these appeals by special leave. Heard Mr. L. N. Rao, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ajay Majithia, the learned counsel for the respondents.
(3.) THE counsel for the appellants contended before us that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether the respondents were employees of the appellant Council or not and the powers under S.28 and S.30 of the MRTUPULP Act, 1971 could be invoked only in a situation where the employer - and - employee relationship is admitted. In support of this contention, our attention was drawn to two decisions of this Court, one in Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani Steels Ltd., 2001 (2) SCC 381: 2001 SCC (L&S) 436 and the other in Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, 2001 (3) SCC 101 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 520.;