Employee-Employer Relationship Must Be Undisputed To Maintain Proceedings Under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act: Bombay HC

The case involved a challenge of the Industrial Court's rejecting the Indus Towers’s application to remove their name from a complaint's cause title which was contested on the grounds of the purported absence of an employer-employee relationship.

A Single Bench of Justice Amit Borkar observed, “It is well settled that a person can be said to be necessary party without whose presence complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute involved was impermissible. However as held by the Apex Court in the case of Cipla (supra) the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court to entertain complaint is based on existence of indisputable or undisputed relationship of employer-employee and in absence of such nature of relationship, the Industrial Court could not have rejected petitioner’s application for deleting him from array in the complaint.”

Sr. Advocate Kiran S. Bapat represented the petitioner, while Advocate Meena Doshi appeared for the respondents.

Indus Towers relied on the precedent of Cipla v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (2001) 2 L.L.N. 19, arguing that maintaining proceedings under the Act necessitates an indisputable employer-employee relationship. The petitioner contended that the complaint was not maintainable due to disputed assertions regarding this relationship.

The Court held that “the complaint makes it clear that petitioner himself is alleging contract between principal employer and contractor sham as bogus. Therefore, in my opinion, the Industrial Court rightly recorded a finding of absence of relationship of employee-employer between the petitioner and first respondent.”

The Court held that in the absence of the existence of the jurisdictional fact of the relation of employer-employee, the Industrial Court could not have entertained a complaint under the provisions of the Act.

“It appears that the Industrial Court was aware of the position of law and rightly recorded a finding of absence of relationship of employeremployee. However, based on equitable principle and the principle of necessary party, rejected petitioner’s application,” the Court remarked.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.

Cause Title: Indus Towers Limited v. Rajendra Patil (Yedravkar) & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:18104)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Sr. Advocate Kiran S. Bapat; Advocates Sungandh Deshmukh and Pavitra Manesh

Respondents: Advocate Meena Doshi

Click here to read/download the Order