.. 1 .. Revision (ULP) No.

152 of 2017

Presented on :­ 13­10­2017
Registered on :­ 13­10­2017
Decided on :­ 09­08­2019
Duration :­ 01Y09M27D
Exhibit No. :­ O­4

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL COURT, MAHARASHTRA,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

REVISION (ULP) NO.152 of 2017

CNR No. MHIC310005122017

Central Provinces Club Nagpur

Services Ltd., A Company incorporated
under Companies Act, having its
registered office at Civil Lines, Nagpur­1,
through its authorised signatory
Sachin Manoharlal Betharia ... PETITIONER
Ori. respondent
VERSUS

Rajesh @ Raja S/o Deorao Parate,

Aged about 33 Yrs., Occ­Service,
Resident of New Futala, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENT
Ori. complainant

IN THE MATTER OF REVISION UNDER

SECTION 44 OF THE MRTU AND PULP ACT, 1971

Coram : Vijay P. Gaikwad,

Member.

Appearances : Shri Shyam Dewani, Adv., for petitioner

Shri M.V.Mohokar, Adv. for respondent.
 .. 2 .. Revision (ULP) No.152 of 2017

JUDGMENT
(Delivered in open Court on 09­08­2019)

Revision petitioner/original respondent being

aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and order dated
31­08­2017 passed by learned Judge, Third Labour Court,
Nagpur in Complaint (ULP) No.569 of 1999, has preferred the
revision under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of
Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act,
1971 (hereinafter referred to as The Act) with the assertion
that the findings recorded by learned Labour Court are
perverse. Learned Labour Court by impugned judgment and
order allowed the complaint and directed petitioner to
reinstate complainant with continuity in service and full back
wages.

For the sake of convenience, parties, are hereinafter,

referred to their original status before Labour Court as
complainant and respondent.

2] Facts, in short, relevant to decide revision, are as

follows;

Complainant filed complaint under Section 28 read

with Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act with the assertion that
he is workman of the respondent club working as Ball Boy
 .. 3 .. Revision (ULP) No.152 of 2017

since 1988. Respondent was not paying him wages even

according to Minimum Wages Act. Thereby he lodged
complaint to the Labour Commissioner. Labour Officer visited
the club and found irregularity. Respondent by getting
annoyed, illegally and without complying Section 25­F of the
Industrial Disputes Act terminated complainant and other 9
workers orally on 01­06­1999. As such it is asserted that it
amounts to unfair labour practice as per Item 1 of Schedule
IV of the Act.

3] Respondent by filing their written statement below

Exh.28 resisted the complaint with assertion that there is no
employer­employee relationship. Complainant was employed
by contractor as a seasonal Ball Boy. There was no
employer­employee relationship. Complainant was employed
by Coach and contractor Santoshkumar Chatterjee. Hence,
complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4] Issues were framed on the basis of pleadings,

below Exh.29. Both the parties led their documentary and
oral evidence. Learned Labour Court by impugned order held
that there was undisputable relationship of employer and
employee. Complaint is maintainable. Respondent engaged
into unfair labour practice and accordingly passed impugned
order. Hence revision.
 .. 4 .. Revision (ULP) No.152 of 2017

5] I heard both the learned Advocates. Perused

written notes of argument submitted by learned Advocate for
respondent below Exh.C­8 and the judgments relied upon.
Upon hearing and going through record, points which arise
for my consideration with findings and reasons thereon are
as follows.

POINTS FINDINGS

1) Does the respondent/present … In negative

petitioner shows that impugned
order suffers from perversity and
thereby requires interference of
this Tribunal ?

2) What order ? ... Revision stands dismissed.

REASONS
Points No.1 and 2

6] From submissions and record, it is admitted fact

that complainant was working as Ball Boy in Tennis Court
owned by the respondent employer. Complainant is with the
case that he is workman of the respondent. Respondent has
denied it with the assertion that he was employed by
contractor/ Coach Santoshkumar Chatterjee. On this
 .. 5 .. Revision (ULP) No.152 of 2017

disputed point, learned Labour Court considered oral

as well as documentary evidence. In the reasoning part
considered all the points raised and also ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court. Learned Labour
Court has held that there was sufficient documentary
evidence to hold that there was indisputable employer and
employee relationship. The learned Labour Court mainly
relied upon payment vouchers produced alongwith list Exh.6.
The vouchers are in respect of payment made by respondent
club to Santoshkumar Chatterjee for making payment of
complainant and similar other employees. The Court has
also considered Labour Officer report at Exh.61. There is
mention that complainant and other employees are working
as Ball Boy under respondent. Learned Labour Court has
considered that respondent failed to produce on record
contract document or any other document to show that
complainant was employed through contractor and there was
existing legal contract. This finding recorded by learned
Labour Court is based upon documentary evidence which is
not heavily challenged by respondent. Learned Labour Court
also drawn adverse inference due to non­production of
relevant documents by respondent. Learned Labour Court
has considered all judgments on the point of employer and
employee relationship and other relied upon by both the
 .. 6 .. Revision (ULP) No.152 of 2017

sides. The Court has distinguished the judgments and

thereupon recorded the findings.

7] Learned Advocate for respondent has reiterated the

argument which was made before learned Labour Court and
he also relied upon following judgments.

1) Janprabha Offset Works ­Vs­ Sarva Shramik

Sangh, Jalgaon & Ors. Reported in 2007(4)
Mh.L.J.97. Hon'ble High Court in said judgment
by making reference to various previous judgments
of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court held
that if the relationship of employer and employee
is disputable, the Industrial Tribunal or Labour
Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint.

2) Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. ­Vs­

State of Rajasthan & Ano. Reported in (2004) 8
Supreme Court Cases 161. Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that mere non­production of muster roll
for a particular part of the period is not sufficient
to hold that workman had worked for 240 days.
In the case in hand, complainant is with the case
 .. 7 .. Revision (ULP) No.152 of 2017

that he is working for more than 10 years.

This fact is not specifically denied by
respondent. Respondent is with the case
that he was employed through contractor.
Under these circumstances, ratio of the
case is not applicable to the case in hand.

3) Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation, Chandrapur ­Vs­ Member,
Industrial Court, Nagpur & Ors. reported
in 2006(4) Mh.L.J. 21. In this case Hon'ble
High Court has held that if respondent
has denied employer­employee relationship,
the Tribunal can hold enquiry to ascertain
whether there is indisputable relationship
as well as to ascertain whether the stand
taken by employer is bonafide.

4) Motor Industries Co. Ltd., Nashik ­Vs­

Deelip Daulat Deore,Nashik & 3 Ors.
reported in 1996 II CLR 1107. In that case
Hon'ble High Court held that Industrial
Court by making reference to Section 17­B
of the Industrial Disputes Act can not direct
employer to deposit monthly wages.
 .. 8 .. Revision (ULP) No.152 of 2017

This case has no relevance to the case in hand.

5) Vividh Kamgar Sabha ­Vs­ Kalyani Steels Ltd. &

Ano. reported in (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases
381. In that case there was pleading of the
complainants that they were shown as a contract
employees. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
employer­employee relationship is disputed and
thereby complaint is not maintainable under
MRTU and PULP Act.

6) Cipla Ltd. ­Vs­ Maharashtra General Kamgar

Union & Ors. reported in (2001) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 101. Hon'ble Supreme Court relying
upon previous judgments has held that once the
employer­employee relationship is denied,
complaint is not maintainable.

8] In the case in hand, documents which were

produced on record show relationship of employer and
employee between complainant and respondent. And in
absence of contrary evidence from respondent, it is clear that
the stand taken by respondent is not bonafide. As such there
was indisputable relationship and accordingly learned Labour
Court has recorded reasons and findings. I am, therefore, of
 .. 9 .. Revision (ULP) No.152 of 2017

the view that impugned judgment and order is based upon

evidence consistent with the ratio laid down by Hon'ble High
Court and Supreme Court. Hon'ble High Court in the case
of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
Chandrapur (Cited supra) has held that Industrial Tribunal
or Labour Court can hold enquiry to ascertain whether
the stand of employer is bonafide and whether there is
indisputable employer­employee relationship. As such
findings recorded by learned Labour Court can not be said to
be perverse. I accordingly hold that there is no need to
interfere in to impugned judgment and order. I accordingly
answered point No.1.

9] By answering Point No.1 in negative, revision is

liable to be dismissed. Learned Advocate for respondent has
not questioned legality and validity of direction to pay full
back wages. There is no need to interfere into said order.

Considering facts and circumstances of the case and the

nature of order passed by learned Labour Court, I am of the
view that it will be just to direct parties to bear their own
costs.
ORDER

1) Revision is dismissed.
 .. 10 .. Revision (ULP) No.152 of 2017

2) Parties to bear their own costs.

3) Record and proceeding along with copy of

the judgment be returned to learned Judge,
Third Labour Court, Nagpur.

Sd/­
Place : Nagpur. (Vijay P.Gaikwad)
Member,
Place : 09­08­2019 Industrial Court No.3,Nagpur.

Argued on : 09­08­2019
Judgment dictated on : 09­08­2019
Judgment transcribed on : 13­08­2019
Judgment checked & signed on: 14­08­2019