REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL   APPEAL  NO.  5077  OF  2006

Raymond Ltd & another          ……..Appellant (s)

-versus-

Tukaram Tanaji Mandhare & another         …….Respondent (s)

      J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T  

Markandey  Katju,  J.

This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Full  

Bench of  the High Court  of  Judicature  at  Bombay in  Writ  Petition Nos.  

Nos. 1204/2003, 7673/2003 and 9449/2003.  

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1

1

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioners  filed complaints under  

section  28  read  with  items  l  (a)(b),  (d)  and  (f)  of  Schedule  IV  of   the  

Maharashtra  Recognition  of Trade  Unions  and Prevention  of  Unfair  

Labour  Practices   Act,   l97l  (hereinafter   referred  to as the MRTU and  

PULP  Act),  before  the  Industrial  Court/Labour  Court  for  certain  reliefs  

claiming  that  they  are  employees  of  the  respondent  company.   The  

respondent company  in all  these writ petitions has disputed the status of the  

employees  and  has contended  in  its  written statement  that there is no  

relationship  of  employer  employee  with  any  of  the  petitioners.  The  

company has  contended  that the complainants were  employed through the  

contractors and that the issue regarding maintainability  of the complaints  

would have to  be decided  by the court.   During the pendency of these  

complaints,  the  judgments  in the case  of  Vividh  Kamgar  Sabha vs.   

Kalyani Steel Ltd, (200l) 2 SCC  38l and  in the case of  Cipla Ltd. vs.   

Maharashtra General  Kamgar  Union,  (200l) 3 SCC l0l were pronounced  

by the  this Court, and relying upon these decisions,  an  application  was  

made by the respondent  company  before  the court that the complaints were  

liable to   be  dismissed  as  there was  no  employer  employee   relationship  

between it and the complainants.    The   Industrial   Court/Labour Court  

upheld   the preliminary  objection  raised  by  the   respondent  company  by  

2

2

holding that the judgments  in  Kalyani Steel Ltd and  Cipla Ltd (supra)  

were applicable  to the facts involved in the complaints and, therefore, the  

complaints  deserve  to   be  dismissed.    The complaints were accordingly  

dismissed.    

4. Thereafter the  petitioners  filed the present  writ  petitions challenging  

the  dismissal  of  the complaints.   In  the   meantime   by its   judgment  in  

Sarva  Shramik Sangh  vs. Indian  Smelting and Refining  Co  Ltd, (2003)  

l0 SCC 455 this Court has  reiterated the view taken in Kalyani Steel Ltd.  

(supra) and Cipla Ltd. (supra).

5.   The  learned single Judge before whom  the  writ petitions came up  

for hearing  noted that  all  these cases decided by the this Court were  in  

respect  of  industries  governed  by  the  Industrial  Disputes  Act,  l947,  

whereas  the present petition relates to  an industry covered by the provisions  

of the Bombay Industrial Relations  Act, l946 (hereinafter referred to as the  

BIR Act).   The learned single Judge noted that in the case  of  Dattatraya  

Kashinath  and others  vs.  Chhatrapati  Sahakari  Sakhar  Karkhana Ltd  

and  others,  l996  II   LLJ  l69  and  in  Sakhar  Kamgar  Union  vs.  Shri   

Chhatrapati Rajaram  Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd and others,  l996 II  

CLR  67 Srikrishna J., as he then was, had  held that  a conjoint  reading of  

3

3

section 3(5) of the  MRTU and  PULP  Act and sections 3(l3) and 3 (l4) of  

the  BIR  Act  would  indicate  that  even  a  person  employed  through   a  

contractor  in  an  industry  governed  by  the  BIR  Act   is  regarded  as  an  

employee under the  MRTU and  PULP  Act  and the complaint filed by  

such  an employee  is  maintainable under the MRTU  and  PULP Act.   The  

learned single Judge however, felt  that another  learned  single  Judge   of  

this   Court (Khandeparkar J.)  in  Nagraj Gowda  and others   vs.  Tata  

Hydro   Electric  Power  Supply  Co Ltd, Bombay and others, 2003 III CLR  

358 had expressed a contrary  view  considering  the  judgments  of  the this  

Court  in Kalyani Steel Ltd, Cipla Ltd (supra) and Sarva Shramik Sangh  

(supra) as also the judgment  of  the Division  Bench  of  this  Court   in  the  

case  of  Hindustan  Coca  Cola Bottling Pvt Ltd. vs.  Bharatiya Kamgar   

Sena, 200l III CLR l025.  The learned single Judge  therefore  decided to  

make a reference  to  a larger  Bench  in  view  of   the conflicting  decisions  

of the learned single  Judges   of  the High Court.

6.   The questions, which were referred to the Full Bench of the High Court  

were:-

l)  Whether a person who is employed by a contractor  who  

undertakes contracts for the execution of any of the whole of  

the work or any  part  of the work which  is  ordinarily work  of  

4

4

the  undertaking  is   an  employee within  the  meaning  of  

section 3(5) of  the MRTU and PULP Act?

           2) Whether a complaint filed under the MRTU and PULP  

Act by an employee as defined under section  3(l3)  of   the  

Bombay  Industrial Relations  Act, is maintainable although  no  

direct  relationship  of employer  employee  exists   between  

him   and  the   principal employer?

           3)  Whether a complaint filed under the MRTU and  PULP  

Act  by employees  under  section 3(l3) of the BIR Act can be  

dismissed if the employer  claims that they are not his direct  

employees   but   are   employed  through a contractor, in view  

of  the  judgments  of  the   Supreme  Court  in  Cipla (supra),  

Kalyani  Steels  Ltd  (supra)  and  Sarva Shramik Sangh vs  

Indian  Smelting  and Refining Co Ltd (supra)?    

7. The Full  Bench of  the  Bombay High Court  answered the  question  

numbers 1 and 2 referred to it in the affirmative, and question number 3 in  

the negative  provided the contractors  workmen were employed to do the  

work of the whole or part of the undertaking.  

5

5

8.  It is this decision which has been challenged before us.  

9. A large numbers of decisions have been cited before us. e.g.  Vividha  

Kamgar Sabha vs. Kalyani Steel Ltd. & another (2001) 2 SCC 381, Cipla  

vs.  MGK Union (2001)  3  SCC  101,  Sarva  Shramik  Sangh  vs.  Indian  

Smelting  &  Refining  Company  Limited (2003)  10  SCC  455,  M/s  

Hindustan  Lever  Limited  vs.  Ashok  Vishnu  Kate (1995)  6  SCC  326,   

NTPC vs. Badri Singh Thakur and others. (2008) 9 SCC 377,  Hindalco  

Industries  vs.  Association of  Engineering Workers (2008)  13 SCC 441,  

Ahmadabad Mfg. and Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. vs. Ram Tehel Ramnand (1972)  

1 SCC 898, Saraspur Mill Co. Ltd. vs. Ramanlal Chimanlal (1974) 3 SCC  

66,  Shramik Uttakarsh Sabha vs. Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. & others  

(1995) 3 SCC 78.

10. In our opinion, in view of the difference of opinion in some of these  

decisions and the importance of the controversy involved and its application  

particularly in the State of Maharashtra, an authoritative decision is required  

by a larger bench on the issues involved.   

11. Hence, we refer the matter to a larger bench on the issues referred to  

above.  

6

6

12. Let the papers of this case be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice  

of India for constituting a larger bench.   

…………………………..J. (Markandey Katju)

………………………….J. (Gyan Sudha Misra)

New Delhi; 09 March, 2011

7

7