Back
1979 Supreme(Pat) 227
PATNA HIGH COURT
K.B.N.Singh, Lalit Mohan Sharma and . JJ.
Bandook Karkhana Mazdoor Union
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhagalpur
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1748 of 1975 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 26, 1979
Workers engaged in gun manufacturing in Monghyr were held to be independent contractors and not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - SECTION 2(S) - WORKMAN - DEFINITION - WORKERS ENGAGED IN GUN MANUFACTURING IN MONGHYR - HELD TO BE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS AND NOT WORKMEN - REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF THE ACT - DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a worker engaged in gun manufacturing in Monghyr, challenged the decision of the Labour Court holding that he was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and was not entitled to reinstatement or compensation for his dismissal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the workers engaged in gun manufacturing in Monghyr were independent contractors and not workmen within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court held that the workers were not under the control and supervision of the employer, they were paid on a piece rate basis, and they were free to accept work from different manufacturers.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the test laid down in Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. V/s. State of Saurashtra (AIR 1957 Supreme Court 245) to determine whether the petitioner was a workman. The court held that the petitioner was not under the control and supervision of the employer, he was paid on a piece rate basis, and he was free to accept work from different manufacturers. Therefore, the court held that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the decision of the Labour Court.
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.
1. The petitioners in this case have challenged the decision given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhagalpur, in a reference case under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, a copy whereof is annexure 1 to the writ application. The petitioner no.2 claims to be a workman under M/s Tridip and Company Gun Factory, Monghyr, respondent no.2, and the petitioner no.1 is the Labour Union.
2. It has been stated in the writ application that guns have been manufactured in the town of Monghyr for a long time and after establishment of the british rule, the business was organised specially by way of security measures. The Government provided the old jail campus in the town as the place for manufacture of guns and 35 factories were given space therefore that purpose. The entry inside the factory is regulated by gate pass issued by the police authorities which every workman has to take. The gate of the campus leading to the factory opens and closes at appointed hours during the day for security reasons by officers who are authorised to check the entry and exit of all persons including the workmen. The workmen who are employed in the factories get their wages on piece rate. Earlier they were disorganised, but have now formed a labour Union, the petitioner no.1. As the petitioner no.2 became the active member of the Union, the Management male fide dismissed him. The Union cook up the case and ultimately the following dispute was referred under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the State Government :
Whether the dismissal of Sri Narain Sharma by M/s Tridip and Co. Gun Factory, Monghyr is justified If not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement or any compensation ?"
3. The Management denied the relationship of employer and employee within the mining of the Act between itself and the workman, petitioner no.2. It was said that the workers engaged in gun manufacturing inside the old jail campus in Monghyr town are skilled artisan and technicians who obtained independent contracts for preparing specific parts of gun from different companies functioning in the campus and none of the managements of the manufacturing companies has any control over them. The workers are, in fact, independent contractors and the Industrial Disputes Act his no application whatsoever. The reference itself has been, on these grounds assailed. The allegations made on behalf of petitioner no.2 in regard to the fasts in support of his case of mala fide were also denied.
4. Tne parties led evidence and the Labour Court held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the responds it no.2 and the petitioner no.2 and the latter is not a workman within the meaning of the expression under the Act and no relief, therefore, could be granted. The reference was accordingly answered. The Union and the worker nave impugned the decision by the present application under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of india.
5. Mr Balbhadra Singh, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the decision of the Labour Court is illegal and the petitioner no.2 must be held to be a working within the meaning of the Act. He placed great reliance on the application of the Management dated 28-12-1967 (Annexure 2) for registration under tne Factories Act, report of inspection of the respondent-company dated 11-9-1968 (Annexure 3) by the Inspector of Factories, to the respondent no.2, the letter of the Inspector of Factories, (Annexure 3-A) issuad in February 1970, the report (Annexure 3-B) dated 24-5-1969 of inspection of the company by the Inspector of Factories, and argued that they clearly proved that the factory in question is covered by the Factories Act. Mr. Rajen Roy, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, argued that the Factories Act also does not apply in this case and a mistake on the part of the Factory Inspector or the respondent no.2 cannot affect tne position. Procee
