JUDGMENT : 1. Since common issue involved in these petitions, the same are being heard together and decided by this common judgment. 2. Heard Shri H.V. Thakur learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Shri M.V. Mohokar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri V.V. Dharanshankar, learned counsel for respondent no.2, in all these petitions. 3. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The application filed for dismissal of the complaint, as seen from the order dated 26.02.2010, has not been decided by the Labour Court, Nagpur. Of course, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 states that this application has been decided by its rejection done on 26.02.2010 and no challenge has been made to this application for last 7-8 years. The argument cannot be accepted for the reason that it is stated in the order dated 26.02.2010 that the parties would be required to adduce evidence to prove facts contended by them and therefore, it would be premature to decide on maintainability of the complaint before any evidence is adduced by the parties. After saying this, the labour Court has observed that the application be filed and the matter be proceeded with as per law. The argument is, therefore, rejected. 5. The order passed by the labour Court on the application moved for dismissal of the complaint filed under the provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “MRTU and PULP Act”) has been challenged on the ground that no evidence is necessary as admittedly the disputed question of fact about the employer-employee relationship is involved in the matter and the settled law telling us that whenever a disputed question of employer-employee relationship is involved, no complaint under MRTU and PULP Act is maintainable until the issue is resolved by the competent forum. In the opinion of the labour Court, however, evidence on certain facts was necessary and therefore, it postponed the decision on this application. But, on going through the averments made in the complaint itself, particularly in para 1 and 2, one can notice that there are clear admissions given by the respondent no.1 indicating that no further evidence is necessary for deciding the question about involvement of a dispute regarding employer-employee relationship. But, on going through the averments made in the complaint itself, particularly in para 1 and 2, one can notice that there are clear admissions given by the respondent no.1 indicating that no further evidence is necessary for deciding the question about involvement of a dispute regarding employer-employee relationship. The respondent no.1 admits that respondent no.2, All India Reporter Engineering Company Limited, is the subsidiary company of respondent no.1 – All India Reporter, Nagpur, the petitioner herein. The moment such an admission is given, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court between Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & others and ABS Spinning Orissa Ltd. and another, reported in 2009 (I) LLJ 558 (SC) would apply to the facts of the case. The law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court says that the subsidiary company has an independent existence against the holding company and therefore, the holding Company cannot be held liable for satisfying the claim of the employees. Therefore, there is no such issue involved in this case which would require the parties to adduce evidence for it's resolution. Even otherwise, in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Bottling S/W Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and another Vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena, Mumbai, and others, reported in 2002 (1) Mh L J 559, the Division Bench has held that for deciding the issue about maintainability of the complaint on the ground that disputed question of fact is involved, it is not necessary that the issue on this point should be framed and what is required to be seen by the labour Court is, the pleadings of the parties. These principles of law should be enough to guide the labour Court in the matter. 6. Shri Mohokar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that there are certain disputed questions of fact and therefore, the issue would have to be re-examined by specifically framing it. I must say, admissions given in the complaint itself would be sufficient to show that there is no need to frame the issue and call upon parties to lead evidence, as admission of a party is the best form of evidence. 7. There is an objection raised by respondent no.1 about the delay in challenging the order passed in the year 2010. 7. There is an objection raised by respondent no.1 about the delay in challenging the order passed in the year 2010. There is indeed a delay in challenging this order, but I do not think that the remedy available in law can be denied to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The reason being that, when an objection about the jurisdiction of the Court is taken, the objection has to be decided by that Court first, and no ground of waiver or estoppel or acquiescence on the part of any party would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon that Court in law it does have. If the Court whose jurisdiction over a matter is questioned does not decide the question or adopts an improper procedure not consistent with law in going about the question and this Court does not interfere on the ground of delay, it would amount to approving the approach of that Court in the matter or even conferring jurisdiction on that Court, not on merits but by default of parties. But, this is not the law and, therefore, this Court in it's supervisory jurisdiction, has to step in to correct the manifest errors of law. The argument is, therefore, rejected. 8. In the result, I find merit in this petition and it is allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated 26.2.2010 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the labour Court. The labour Court is directed to take a decision on the application for taking exception to the maintainability of the complaint on its merits, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The parties to appear before the labour Court on the next date already fixed in the matter. The labour Court is directed to decide the application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within Two months from the date of the order. The application filed by respondent no.1 praying for issuance of directions to the petitioner and respondent no.2 to produce documents on record shall also be decided in the light of the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court, some of which has already been discussed in this order. All questions are kept open. 9. The Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.