Judgment

Mahajan J. - The appellants are a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, & have got mills at Tilaknagar, District Ahmednagar, in the State of Bombay, for manufacturing sugar. For the purpose of their business, they employ muster labour & contract labour.

2. By a notification dated 8-1-1948, published in the Govt. Gazette, under S:2 (4), Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act XI [11] of 1947), the Provincial Govt. applied the provisions of the Act to sugar industry with effect from 12-1-1948. A dispute arose between the employees of the appellants including the seasonal & contract labour & the appellants as regards the demand made by the employees for payment of six months wages as bonus for the year 1947-48 & as the dispute was not resolved by conciliation, the Govt. of Bombay issued the following notification on 1- 4-1949: " Whereas an industrial dispute has arisen between the Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd., Belapur Road, District Ahmednagar & its employees (hereinafter referred to as the said industrial dispute ) in respect of payment of six months wages as bonus for the year 1947-48 to all employees including the seasonal & contract labour; And whereas the provincial Govt. is satisfied that the said industrial dispute is not likely to be settled by other means; Now. therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 73. Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act XI [11] of 1947), the Govt. of Bombay is pleased to refer the said industrial dispute to the arbitration of the Industrial Court." It was urged on behalf of the appellants before the Industrial Court that contract labour was not covered by the definition of employee under the Act & that the Court had, therefore, no jurisdiction to go into the dispute in regard to contract labour. The Industrial Court held that contract labour was within the definition of employee & that it had jurisdiction to decide the dispute. It made its award on 8-12-1949 whereby it awarded bonus equal to "three-eighths of the total basic earnings" of each worker earned during the year 1947-48 on the condition as stated therein. The award was published in the Govt. Gazette on 29-9-1949 & the appellants were ordered to pay the said bonus both to the seasonal labour & contract labour.

3. The appellants filed a petition in the High Court of Bombay, urging that contract labour were not in fact employed by them nor were they their employees within the definition contained in S. 3 (13) (a), Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, & that being so, there was no industrial dispute between the appellants & the contract labour & the reference to the Industrial Court was without jurisdiction. It was prayed that the award be quashed. The petition was heard by Bhagwati J. & he held that the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to make the award with respect to the contract labour as that Class of labour was not covered by the definition of employee contained in the Act & he granted a writ of certiorai quashing the award.

4. The State of Bombay appealed against this decision & the appeal Court on 21-11-1950 reversed this decision & held that contract labour was covered by the definition of the word employee contained in the Act & that the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to make the award. The result was that the order of Bhagwati J. was set aside & the petition was dismissed. This is an appeal by special leave from that decision.

5. The sole question for decision is whether the Industrial Court acted with jurisdiction in making the award as regards the bonus to be paid to contract labour. The jurisdiction of the Industrial Court depends on the finding of fact whether contract labour employed by the appellants is covered by the definition of the word employees contained in S. 3 (13) of the Act which is in these terms : "Employee means any person employed to do any skilled or unskilled manual or Clerical work for hire or reward in any industry & includs - (1)a