The definition of 'employee' in Section 3(13)(a) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, includes persons employed by a contractor to do work for the employer in the execution of a contract, and the definition of 'employer' in Section 8(14)(e) of the Act includes the owner of an undertaking who contracts with any person for the execution of work which is ordinarily part of the undertaking.

Chagla, C.J.

1. By a notfn. dated 1-4-1949, the Govt. of Bombay referred an industrial dispute that had arisen between the Maharashtra Sugar Mills, Ltd., who are regp. 1 before us, its employees in respect of payment of six months wages as bonus for the year 1947-48 to all employees including the seasonal contract labour. This dispute was referred under Section 73, Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The company contended before the Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction to arbitrate with reference to the contract labour employed in the industry. That contention was overruled by the Industrial Tribunal. Thereupon a petn. was presented by the company for a writ of certiorari to quash the award made by the Tribunal to the extent that it awarded bonus to contract labour. This petn. came before Bhagwati J. who upheld the contention of the petnr-company ordered a writ to issue in favour of the company. The State of Bombay has now come in appeal before us from that decision of the learned Judge.

2. The first question that was canvassed before the learned Judge was whether this Ct. had jurisdiction to interfere with the decision of the Industrial Tribunal that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim of contract labour in respect of a bonus. The Industrial Tribunal hold that contract labour satisfied the conditions laid down in the Act those who were employed by contract were employees within the meaning of the Act therefore, it came to the conclusion that it had jurisdiction to proceed with the reference with regard to contract labour as well. What was urged by the State of Bombay before Bhagwati J. was that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal that contract labourers were employees was a finding of fact which could not be controlled in any way by this Ct.; that that finding decision was final binding no writ of certiorari could be issued to interfere with that decision. Now the Industrial Court is a Ct. of limited jurisdiction; it is a creature of statute its jurisdiction is strictly controlled by the Act which brings it into existence, if the Tribunal acts in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the statute, the H. C. can always correct the Ct. by an appropriate writ. The jurisdiction of the Ct. to deal with this reference is to be found in Section 78 of the Act, which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Provincial Govt. may, at any time, refer an industrial dispute to the arbitration of the Industrial Court, if certain conditions are satisfied with which we are note concerned in this case. Therefore, the only jurisdiction which the Provincial Govt. has is to refer a matter to the Industrial Ct. the only jurisdiction that the Industrial Ct. has is to try a matter which relates to an industrial dispute as defined by the Act. If something is referred to the Tribunal which is not an industrial dispute, then the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to deal with that matter. "Industrial dispute" is defined by Section 8 (17) as meaning "any dispute or difference between an employer employee or between employers employees or between employees employees which is connected with any industrial matter", "industrial matter" is defined by Section 8(18). There is no controversy in this case that the dispute between contract labour the Sugar Co. is connected with an industrial matter. The only controversy is that the dispute is not between an employer an employee. The question with regard to jurisdiction arises in this way, that the Industrial Tribunal having decided that there was a relationship of employer employee between the company the contract labour; whether it is open to this Ct. to question that finding to determine for itself whether that finding is a correct one or not. Now, it is well established, we went into this matter at some length in a recent decision of this Ct. (Mohsinali Mahomedali v. State of Bombay, 53 Bom. L. R. 94 : (A.