SUNIL B.SHUKRE, J. - (1.) Heard Shri S.S. Ghate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar, ASGI for respondent No. 1 and Ku. K.K. Pathak, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) We have gone through the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(3.) It is stated in the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that no employer and employee relationship was created between respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the petitioner. It is also stated in the reply in the words "if at all the petitioner worked with respondent Nos. 2 and 3, depending upon the exigencies of work of temporary nature, then also it cannot be said that he is an employee of respondent Nos. 2 and 3." Such averment made in the reply would show that even though there is no categorical admission regarding employer and employee relationship, it is not the case of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the petitioner, insofar as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, was and has always been a stranger to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, having got nothing to do with respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In fact, it appears also from the averments made in the reply that it was not a categorical contention of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the Conciliation proceedings that the petitioner had never rendered even temporary service of any nature whatsoever. This is the reason why the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur, submitted his failure report, seeking reference of the dispute to the appropriate authority for recording a decision as to whether or not there existed any industrial dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3.;