As per case facts, the appellants contended that prior Supreme Court judgments, which mandated establishing an employer-employee relationship before filing a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and ... Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, were legally flawed. They argued that the Maharashtra Act and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, offer equally broad remedies, and the Maharashtra Act's procedure is not merely summary. The question arose whether an Industrial Court under the Maharashtra Act can adjudicate a disputed employer-employee relationship, or if this foundational issue must first be resolved through the Industrial Disputes Act. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed its previous stance, stating that an undisputed employer-employee relationship is a prerequisite for a complaint under the Maharashtra Act. If disputed, this core issue must be settled under the Industrial Disputes Act, as the Maharashtra Act is not equipped for such complex determinations, and no compelling reason for reconsideration was found.