Industrial adjudication discourages the employment of contract labour for work of a permanent nature that is integral to the manufacturing process. Additionally, findings of fact regarding the authorization of representatives for a settlement are generally not open to challenge in appeal.

JUDGMENT

Per Ramaswaml, J. :-This appeal is brought from the award of the industrial tribunal, Punjab, Patiala, dated 15 April 1963, in Reference No. 5 of 1962, published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Part I), dated 3 May 1963.

The appellant is a factory under the name and style of Shibu Metal Works, Jagadhari, being a partnership concern registered under the Partnership Act and carrying on the business of manufacture of circle sheets and brass utensils. The appellant has been employing about 65 to 70 workmen who were shown on the muster-rolls. Among other sections of the factory the appellant has three sections, viz., chhilai, lathe and press where it adopted the practice of getting its work done through contractors. On 30 October 1957 there was a settlement between the workmen and the management with regard to several matters. The settlement was arrived at before the conciliation officer and one of the terms of the settlement was an undertaking by the workmen not to raise any dispute covered or not covered by the settlement for five years, i.e., from 1 April 1957 till 31 March 1962, except in cases of victimization. The secretary, Metal Mazdoor Sabha, served a demand notice on 3 July 1962 upon the appellant with regard to many matters. On 7 December 1962 the Punjab Government referred the following three demands oat of the demand notice for adjudication to the industrial tribunal, Punjab at Patiala-vide notification No. 3754-IB-Lab-III-62/16470:

" (1) Whether the action of the management in not providing full work to Hari Ram during the year 1962 and thereby depriving him of his full wages is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief/exact compensation he is entitled ?

(2) Whether the contract system of taking work of the permanent nature in the following sections/departments of the concern by the management from the contract labour should be abolished:

(1) chhilai,

(2) lathe,

(3) press ?

(3) Whether the workmen are entitled to the grant of casual leave with wages in a year ? If so, how much in a year and with what details ? "

A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the appellant before the industrial tribunal that this reference was bad in law because the settlement dated 30 October 1957 was extended for another five years by the second agreement dated 21 February 1962 by which the workmen undertook not to raise any dispute for five years except in a case of victimization. The preliminary objection was rejected by the industrial tribunal on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the workmen who negotiated with the management for extending the agreement had the authority of the other workmen of the establishment as required by rule 58 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes (Punjab) Rules. On the merits of the reference the industrial tribunal decided item 1 regarding Hari Ram s victimization in favour of the management. With regard to the other two items, viz., abolition of contract labour and the grant of casual leave, the industrial tribunal held that the management should abolish the contract labour system within a period of three months from the date the award came into operation and that the management should grant six days casual leave with wages in a year to the workmen.

On behalf of the appellant It was con-tented, in in the first place, that the industrial tribunal was in error in holding that the agreement, Ex. R. 1, commencing with effect from 1 April 1957 was not extended for another five years until 31 March 1967 by a second agreement, Ex. R. 2. Rule 58 (2) (6) of the Industrial Disputes (Punjab) Rules provides that the settlement shall be signed in case of workmen either by the president and secretary of a trade union of workmen, or by five representatives of the workmen duly authorized in this behalf at a meeting of the workmen held for that purpose. The case of the management was that a meeting of the workmen was actually held and in that meeting they authorized the five workmen to sign the set