JUDGMENT - MHATRE NISHITA, J.:—This petition challenges the Award Part II dated 18th August, 1995 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in Reference (IT) No. 44 of 1993 rejecting the reference on the ground that the petitioner Union was not able to establish the master and servant relationship between the workmen represented by the petitioner and respondent No. 1 herein. The entire dispute has arisen on account of the services of the workmen represented by the petitioner Union being terminated. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner Union is referred to as "Union" and respondent No. 1 company as "company".

2.The entire reference was in respect of about 30 workmen involved in the dispute. The Union represent the employees who are called retainers by the company. These employees sought permanent absorption and other reliefs from the company. The company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling and servicing of electronic items mainly Televisions. Between the years 1972 and 1978, the company engaged these 30 persons as Technicians initially on a contract basis for a period of four years. Some of these Technicians were then made permanent as Tradesman or Scientific Assistants or Assistant Technical Officers. These 30 employees obtained employment after responding to an advertisement issued by the company for calling Service Engineers on retainer basis. The employees were selected pursuant to a written test and oral interview. After selection, they were required to undergo practical training which was imparted by the company for a period of three months. After the training period was completed, contracts were entered into between the company and each of these 30 employees. According to them, the contract which labels each of them as "Retainer" was nothing but a paper arrangement between themselves and the company who did not want to implement certain labour laws. Although the service contracts were treated as individual contracts, the Union has averred that the workmen were under the supervision of the company and no independent decisions could be taken by these employees. The employees raised a demand for absorption in employment and for all other service conditions which were applicable to other employees. As this was not granted by the company, the Union approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing Writ Petition No. 2689 of 1983. This petition was dismissed as the petitioner had an alternate remedy in approaching the machinery constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the petitioner Union raised a dispute against the company which was referred for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. This dispute pertains to the regularisation as well as certain other demands made by the Union on behalf of the employees including wage revision and other demands.

3.The Union filed their Statement of Claim justifying the demands made by them for regularisation of the employees and absorption and permanency, wage rise, etc. The Union demonstrated that in fact these employees were always the workmen of the company and had wrongly been treated as Retainers. It was emphasised in the Statement of Claim that the company had direct control and supervision over these employees who were not able to take any independent decisions in respect of their work. The company in its Written Statement contended that there was no contract of service between them and the employees since they were independent persons with whom the company had entered into a contract for servicing of Television sets sold by them to the customers. It was contended that the industrial dispute referred was not maintainable as there could be no dispute between the company and the employees known as Retainers. Evidence of one of the employees was led on behalf of all the 30 employees before the Industrial Tribunal. No evidence, oral or documentary, was led by the company at all. On a consideration of the documents as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document