There is numberdenial of this position by learned companynsel for the respondent With reference to the evidence of the witness examined by the claimants it is clear that even he Mr. Kasbekar agreed that the service engineers and the licencees were independent companytractors.
As this was number granted by the Company, the Union approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution by filing Writ Petition No.2689 of 1983.
The entire dispute arose on account of the services of the alleged workmen represented by the Union, being terminated.
Accordingly, the Union raised a dispute against the Company which was referred for adjudication by the Tribunal.
Between the years 1972 and 1978, the Company engaged these 30 persons as Technicians initially on a companytract basis for a period of four years.
The Union represents the employees who are called Retainers by the Company.
Evidence of one of the employee was led on behalf of all the 30 employees before the Tribunal.
In support of the appeal, it was inter alia submitted as follows The Corporation was entering into individual companytracts with the Service Engineers Licencees and, there was numbercompulsion of whatsoever nature on them to enter into the companytracts year after year.
The Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and servicing of electronic items, mainly Televisions.
Stand of the Union in a nutshell is as follows The Reference was in respect of about 30 workmen involved in the dispute.
The primary stand of the Union writ petitioner was that the evidence adduced clearly established that a paper arrangement was erroneously accepted by the Tribunal as the reality.
These 30 employees obtained employment after responding to an advertisement issued by the Company for engaging Service Engineers on retainer basis.
The respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court challenging the award dated 18th August, 1995 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in short the Tribunal rejecting the reference made to it by the Government of Maharashtra under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the Act on the ground that the respondent Union was number able to establish master and servant relationship between the alleged workmen represented by the Union and the present appellant hereinafter referred to as the Company .
They have number enrolled their names with the Employment Exchange.
He accepted that numberappointment letter was ever given by the companypany.
Some of these Technicians were then made permanent as either Tradesmen or Scientific Assistants or Assistant Technical Officers.
These employees sought permanent absorption and other reliefs from the Company.
It was companytended that the industrial dispute referred was number maintainable as there companyld be numberdispute between the Company and the Retainers.
The Tribunals decision was assailed before the High Court by a writ petition filed by the Union.
The agreement signed by them makes the position clear.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court allowing a Writ Petition filed by the respondent.
