n ebAll The Above Workmen Having Vs Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd (Thane Maharashtra Member Industrial Court)
Conclusion: Even if the Respondent No.- 1 was Registered Employer in respect of its Goregaon Establishment, however Respondent No.- 1 was not carrying out personally the work of Mathadi Nature, Complainants had failed to make out any case of Unfair Labour Practices on the part of Respondent No.- 1 & 2. Therefore, Complainants were not entitled for any relief.
Held: Complainants stated that sometime in March – 2018, Respondent No.- 1 started Shifting its Work from Goregaon Godown to Bhivandi Godown and ultimately closed Down the Establishment at Goregaon and shifted its activities to Bhivandi. It was the case of the Complainants that, the Mathadi Nature of Work was being continued at Bhivandi. Complainants stated that, the Respondent – 1 have put up Notice for Closing their Godown in Goregaon and starting their activities from Bhivandi. Complainants stated that the Respondents No.- 1 and 2 with Local Politicians and Unregistered Workers prevented the Complainants from performing their Work at Bhivandi Godown. Complainants claiming themselves to be the Registered Mathadi Workers, with the Respondent No.- 3 Mathadi Board and the Members of Toli No.- 74 and 74-A had prayed for Directions to the Respondent No.- 1 to provide the Work of Mathadi Nature to the Complainants at the Establishment of the Respondent No.- 1. Respondent No.- 1 had informed the Respondent No.- 3 Board that, the operations at Goregaon had been Closed w.e.f. 10-09-2018. Respondent No.- 1 further requested for Cancellation of its Registration and to Withdraw the Workers of Toli No.- 74 and 74-A. Respondent No.- 3 Board stated that the Respondent No.- 1 was informed that their Request for Cancellation could not be accepted and Bhivandi was within the jurisdiction of Respondent Board and therefore, the Respondent No.- 1 should engage only the Workers of Toli No.- 74 and 74-A for Mathadi types of Works. Respondent No.- 1 through Mrs. Prema Mukherjee attended the Meeting on 05-10-2018 and informed that the Respondent No.- 1 had appointed M/s. K. P. Transport as its Contractor and Loading and Unloading Mathadi Work was being done by the Workers of M/s. K. P. Transport. Respondent No.- 3 further stated that, the Respondent No.- 1 vide its Letter dated 10-10-2018 informed the Respondent Board that, the Respondent No.- 1 have Closed their Operations at Goregaon Establishment and the said Registration would not apply to Bhivandi Establishment and therefore, Toli No.- 74 and 74-A could not be considered to be allotted to their Bhivandi Establishment. It was held that Complainants inspite of being aware that C & F Agent M/s. P. Transport was engaged, and was performing work of Mathadi Nature, the Complainants did not implead said M/s. P. Transport as Party Respondent. Respondent being registered as Employer under the Mathadi Act was duty bound to engage Mathadi Workers, for performing the work of Mathadi Nature at its Establishment, so long as it was performing and controlling the Mathadi Activities. However, at the same time, the entitlement of Respondent to organize its Business Activities could not be disputed. Respondent No.- 1 had organized its Business Activities and had engaged the Services of C & F Agent for performing the work of Mathadi Nature. As such, even if the Respondent No.- 1 was Registered Employer in respect of its Goregaon Establishment, however Respondent No.- 1 was not carrying out personally the work of Mathadi Nature, at its Bhiwandi Establishment and the same was entrusted to M/s. K. P. Transport on Principal to Principal basis. Complainants had failed to make out any case of Unfair Labour Practices on the part of Respondent No.- 1 & 2. Therefore, Complainants were not entitled for any relief.
