Rejected.
264 of 1989 under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
1221 of 1992 brought by the petitioner workmen upheld the order of the Industrial Court.
The Industrial Court numbericed, inter alia, that between 1979, when the petitioner workmens services were terminated by the then labour contractors, and 1985, when the companytract labour was abolished in certain areas of operation of respondent No.
43 of 1992 arising out of W. P. No.
In the year 1985, the labour contract system then prevailing in various departments of respondent No.
In view of certain disturbed industrial relations, respondent 2 on 20th Nov. 1979 terminated the very companytract with the labour companytractors as a sequel to which the labour companytractors, in turn, terminated the services of all these workmen on various dates soon thereafter.
The High Court in W.P. No.
This special leave petition arises out of and is directed against the order dated 6th April 1992 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in LPA No.
The Industrial Court by its order dated 17th February 1992 dismissed this action for various reasons.
2 and that the termination was an unfair labour practice and void.
2, the labour companytractors had employed their own separate set of workmen and that, therefore, even, if, as a result of the abolition of companytract labour, workmen became the employees of the principal, those workmen were other than the petitioners.
2 but it came to be upheld by the High Court except for some areas of operation which were saved for companytract labour.
2 came to be abolished by Government.
Apart from the aforesaid companytentions the workmen companytended before the Industrial Court that, at all events, after the abolition of the companytract labour in the year 1985, they automatically became the workmen of respondent No.
2 and were entitled to reliefs of reinstatement, back wages etc.
The numberification in this behalf was challenged by respondent No.
2 and those companytractors companytinued the same work with a new set of workmen.
The matter ultimately came to rest with order of the High Court being left undisturbed by this Court.
It is alleged that, thereafter, the same labour companytractors had been reengaged by the respondent No.
The workmen petitioners have been agitating the question of the legality and fairness of termination of their services done in the year 1979 companytending, inter alia, that the erection of the intermediary of labour companytractors was merely a devise and facade that they were all really employees of respondent No.
The Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.
After a chequered companyrse of litigation, the matter ultimately came before the Industrial Court of Maharashtra, Thane, in Complaint ULP No.
2 herein.
43 of 1992 dismissed the workmens appeal observing We agree with the reasoning and companyclusion of the learned single Judge and summarily dismiss the Appeal.
1221 of 1992.
The petitioner Association of Chemical Workers, Bombay claims to represent and has brought this action on behalf of 472 workmen who were the erstwhile workmen appointed by various labour companytractors engaged by the management respondent No.
