---
title: "Existence Of Employer-Employee Relationship Must Be Indisputable In Proceedings Under The MRTU & PULP Act: Bombay HC"
date: 2024-11-08
author: "Brian Noronha"
url: https://www.indialaw.in/blog/civil/employer-employee-mrtu-pulp-act-bombay/
---

# Existence Of Employer-Employee Relationship Must Be Indisputable In Proceedings Under The MRTU & PULP Act: Bombay HC

Posted On - 8 November, 2024 •

By - [Brian Noronha](https://www.indialaw.in/author/brian-noronha/ "Posts by Brian Noronha")

[![Existence Of Employer-Employee Relationship Must Be Indisputable In Proceedings Under The MRTU & PULP Act: Bombay HC](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/Central-Consumer-Protection-Authority-CCPA-Acts-on-Consumer-Complaints-Against-Ola-Electric.jpg)](https://www.indialaw.in/wp-content/uploads/Central-Consumer-Protection-Authority-CCPA-Acts-on-Consumer-Complaints-Against-Ola-Electric.jpg)

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court (“**HC**”) was recently seized with a writ petition[[1]](#_edn1) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order of an Industrial Court holding its own jurisdiction as maintainable in a complaint of unfair labour practices filed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“**MRTU & PULP Act**”). The HC, while allowing the petition, dismissed the complaint filed before the Ld. Industrial Court in view of a long line of precedents that lay down the principle of law that the existence of employer-employee relationship must be indisputable when exercising the jurisdiction of the court under the MRTU & PULP Act.

The genesis of the present dispute arose from the petitioner’s factory situated at Palghar, Maharashtra. According to the provisions of section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, the petitioner was required to maintain a statutory canteen since it was an employer of more than 250 employees. The case of the petitioner was that, accordingly, it had engaged the respondent no. 2 to run the canteen through the latter’s own staff. The respondent no. 1 union represents 26 workers working in the aforementioned statutory canteen who had filed a complaint before the Ld. Industrial Court, Thane, seeking a declaration that the aforesaid 26 workers are permanent employees of the petitioner. An application for interim relief was also filed.

The petitioner had, in response, filed an application alleging non-maintainability of the complaint before the Ld. Industrial Court as it contended that there is no employer-employee relationship between the aforesaid 26 workers and itself; that, therefore, the Ld. Industrial Court did not have jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. The Ld. Industrial Court, vide an order dated 1st October, 2021, rejected the application filed by the petitioner holding that there was subsisting employer-employee relationship between Petitioner-Company and the 26 workers before 2008 and that therefore the complaint was maintainable (“**impugned order**”). Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the petitioner approached the HC.

The petitioners, relying on decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (“**SC**”), sought to contend before the HC that when there is a dispute that the complainant is not an employee of the establishment, the proceedings under the MRTU & PULP Act would not be maintainable. It was also contended that in a complaint seeking declaration of the employer-employee relationship in respect of contract labour, the appropriate court would not be the one constituted under the MRTU & PULP Act. The respondent no. 1 union, relying on earlier decisions of the HC[[2]](#_edn2), sought to contend that workmen of statutory canteens are to be declared as employees. Therefore, there was no infirmity with the impugned order.

The HC, in a comprehensive overview of the subject, noted that a long line of decisions by the SC[[3]](#_edn3) have already put to rest the controversy being agitated in the present petition. The HC, relying on the law laid down by the SC, stated that the Labour Court or the Industrial Court was not the appropriate court to decide the question of contract workers being employees of an establishment under the provisions of section 32[[4]](#_edn4) of the MRTU & PULP Act.

The decisions referred to by the respondent no. 1 union were also distinguished by the HC as the same did not in any manner differ from the aforementioned principle, as these decisions in those cases upheld the employment under different legislations and not under the provisions of the MRTU & PULP Act. The decisions of the SC hold that object of the MRTU & PULP Act is to enforce the provisions relating to unfair labour practices and that, therefore, undisputed or indisputable existence of employer employee relationship is *sine qua non*for entertaining complaint of unfair labour practice. A decision of the SC[[5]](#_edn5) was also relied upon to state that the workmen of statutory canteen would only be workmen of the establishment for the purposes of the Factories Act, 1948, and not for any other purposes. Accordingly, the HC set aside the impugned order and directed dismissal of the complaint filed by the respondent no. 1 union before the Ld. Industrial Court, Thane, for lack of jurisdiction.

In the opinion of the author, the present decision is helpful and insightful in adjudicating the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or the Industrial Court in proceedings under the MRTP & PULP Act. It is now emphatically clear that that when declaration of contract being sham and bogus is sought, the Industrial Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of unfair labour practice under the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act. It would also be relevant for employees to understand that the correct fora to approach, when faced with scenarios where there is a dispute as to the existence of employer-employee relationship may be authorities under other relevant labour statutes and not the MRTP & PULP Act.

---

[[1]](#_ednref1) *Tata Steel Ltd.* v. *Maharashtra Shramjivi General Kamgar Union* (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3428). The coram comprised of Sandeep V. Marne, J.

[[2]](#_ednref2) *Hindustan Coca Cola Bottlings S/W (Private) Ltd.*v. *Bhartiya Kamgar Sangh*[(2002) 3 Bom CR 129] and *Uni Klinger Ltd., Ahmednagar* v. *Subhash Baburao Kambale*[(2016) 6 Mah LJ 543].

[[3]](#_ednref3) *Cipla Ltd.*v. *Maharashtra General Kamgar Union*[(2001) 3 SCC 101], *Sarva Shramik Sangh* v. *Indian Smelting and Refining Co. Ltd.*[(2003) 10 SCC 455], *Vividh Kamgar Sabha* v. *Kalyani Steels Ltd.*[(2001) 2 SCC 381], *General Labour Union (Red flag), Bombay* v. *Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing Co. Ltd.*[1995 Supp (1) SCC 175]. See also, *Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd.* v. *Shramik Sena* [(1999) 6 SCC 439], *Hindalco Industries Ltd.* v. *Association of Engineering Workers*[(2008) 13 SCC 441],*Tukaram Tanaji Mandhare* v. *Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd.*[(2005) 4 Mah LJ 1045] and *Raymond Ltd. and Anr.* v. *Tukaram Tanaji Mandhare* (Civil Appeal No. 5077 of 2006).

[[4]](#_ednref4) The provisions of section 32 of the MRTU & PULP Act are as follows:

*“**32. Power of Court to decide all connected matters**.—Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Court shall have the power to decide all matters arising out of any application or a complaint referred to it for the decision under any of the provisions of this Act.”*

[[5]](#_ednref5) *Parimal Chandra Raha* v. *Life Insurance Corporation of India*[(1999) 6 SCC 439]. See also, *M.M.R. Khan* v. *Union of India*[1990 Supp SCC 191].

Disclaimer - This article is intended for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal counsel in relation to their individual circumstances.

[Download PDF](https://www.indialaw.in/blog/civil/employer-employee-mrtu-pulp-act-bombay//pdf/)

---

# IndiaLaw LLP — Offices & Contact Details

---

## General Contact

| | |
|---|---|
| **Website** | https://www.indialaw.in |
| **Primary email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Primary phone** | +91 836-9995919 |
| **Contact form** | https://www.indialaw.in/connect/ |
| **Careers (separate channel)** | https://www.indialaw.in/careers/ |


---

## All Offices (9 locations across 8 cities)

### 1. Mumbai — Registered Office & Head Office (Apeejay Chambers)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Apeejay Chambers, Ground Floor, Wallace Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-6924-7400](tel:02269247400) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate · IP |
| **Notes** | The HQ. 5 partners based here. Handles PAN-India litigation, arbitration, corporate, banking, IP and real estate practice. Largest team across all offices. |

### 2. Mumbai — Non-Litigation Office (Excelsior, Fort)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 4th Floor, New Excelsior Theatre Pvt. Ltd., Amrit Keshav Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 |
| **Phone** | [022-697-40500](tel:022-697-40500) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/mumbai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Non-litigation only — consultations, negotiations, transactional work |
| **Notes** | Opened 2024. Litigation and arbitration remain at the Apeejay Chambers head office. |

### 3. Delhi

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Flat No. 1107 & 1108, Prakashdeep Building, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/delhi/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Arbitration · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Corporate · Banking · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | 3 partners based here. Located near the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court and other appellate bodies. |

### 4. Kolkata

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Centre Point Building, Room No. 214, 2nd Floor, Premises No. 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Opp. Great Eastern Hotel, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata – 700 001, West Bengal |
| **Phone** | [+91 33 4813 1001](tel:+913348131001) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/kolkata/ |
| **Practice focus** | Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Commercial & Civil Litigation · Arbitration · Banking Litigation · Real Estate · Labour & Employment · Consumer |
| **Notes** | Advises banks, NBFCs, MSMEs and corporates on transactions and dispute resolution. Works in close coordination with the Mumbai HO. |

### 5. Chennai

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | GF-A, 19 Casa Major Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/chennai/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Full-fledged office with experienced legal team. Supported by Mumbai HO. |

### 6. Bengaluru (Bangalore)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | INDIALAW LLP, No. 7 Chinnaswamy Mudaliar Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore – 560 051 |
| **Phone** | [080-4167-2444](tel:08041672444) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/bengaluru/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate · Family Laws · Labour |
| **Notes** | Located near Bangalore High Court. Handles corporate, commercial, banking and matrimonial disputes. |

### 7. Hyderabad

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | 403, 4th Floor, Sanatana Ecstasy Building, beside Tanishq Show Room, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029, Telangana |
| **Phone** | [040-6666-5166](tel:04066665166) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/hyderabad/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Banking · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Particularly well known for complex banking matters and real estate transactions. |

### 8. Cochin (Kochi)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | Second Floor, Pulikkal Building, K.K. Padmanabhan Road, Ernakulam North – 682 018, Kerala |
| **Phone** | [0484-3583961](tel:04843583961) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/cochin/ |
| **Practice focus** | Litigation · Insolvency & Bankruptcy · Real Estate |
| **Notes** | Commercial disputes, property litigation, financial-claim arbitrations and real estate transactions. |

### 9. Noida (NCR)

| | |
|---|---|
| **Address** | No. 16 & 17, Silver Offices, 17th Floor, Wave One, Sector 18, Noida – 201 301 |
| **Phone** | (general line: +91 836-9995919) |
| **Email** | contact@indialaw.in |
| **Page** | https://www.indialaw.in/noida/ |
| **Practice focus** | Aviation · Insurance · Mergers & Acquisitions · Corporate |
| **Office head** | **Mr. Dinesh Gupta** (joined August 2025 to lead and expand the corporate practice) |
| **Notes** | Newest office. Sector-focused on highly regulated industries serving NCR-based clients. |

---

## Quick-Dial Phone List

| Office | Phone |
|---|---|
| Mumbai HO (Apeejay) | 022-6924-7400 |
| Mumbai Excelsior | 022-697-40500 |
| Kolkata | +91 33 4813 1001 |
| Bengaluru | 080-4167-2444 |
| Hyderabad | 040-6666-5166 |
| Cochin | 0484-3583961 |
| **General / Marketing line** | **+91 836-9995919** |

Delhi, Chennai and Noida route through the general number.

---

## Social Channels

- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/indialaw
- X / Twitter: https://twitter.com/Indialawmumbai
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/indialawllp/
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/indialawllp

---