This Complaint came to be dismissed by the impugned Order dated 20th August, 1996.
The Appellant Union has filed an SLP directly in this Court against this Order as the High Court of Bombay, in the case of Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak v. S. V. Naik reported in 1993 1 CLR Page 1002, has already held that the Industrial Court cannot in a companyplaint under MRTU PULP Act abolish companytract labour and treat employees as direct employees of the companypany.
The Appellant Union claimed that even though the Appellants are actually the employees of the Respondents, the Respondents are number treating them at par with other employees and have numberionally engaged companytractors to run the canteen.
1, 1 a , 1 b , 4, 4 a of Schedule II and Items 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU PULP Act.
As the Respondents were number accepting the Appellants claim to treat them as their employees, the Appellant filed a Complaint under Section 28 1 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 hereinafter called the MRTU PULP Act alleging that the Respondents had engaged in unfair labour practices under Item Nos.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The Appellants claim to be a Union representing the workmen of a Canteen run by the Respondents.
N. Variava, J. This Appeal is against an Order passed by the Industrial Court on 20th August, 1996.
