The Labour Court's jurisdiction under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is limited to computing and implementing existing individual rights of workmen, and does not extend to determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

( 1 ) THE present writ petition is directed against the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi, made on the application of Tapeshari Dass respondent No. 2 under section 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act against the petitioner. On 20th December 1963 Tapeshwari Dass, (hereafter REFERRED TO to as respondent) made the aforesaid application claiming that he had been in employ of Sher Singh and sons, of which Sher Singh, (hereafter REFERRED TO to as the petitioner) is alleged to be the sole proprietor. The respondent further claimed in his application that he had been in the employment since April 193 8 and his wages were Rs. 250. 00 per mensem. He alleged that the management closed the establishment in the month of August Without any notice to the applicant and the petitioner had failed to pay the dues as required under section 25 FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent, therefore, claimed Rs. 3. 375. 00 asunder :-On these facts the respondent prayed in his application under section 33 C (2) that the Court may compute the amount due to him. The petitioner was called upon to file a reply in which he inter alia stated as under :-

(1) The relationship of employer and workman never existed between the parties and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to proceed on merits without deciding this issue ;

(2) The surrendering of the possession of the shop to the landlord due to forced unemployment cannot be termed as "closing down of the undertaking" within the meaning of section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947;

(3) Tapeshwari Dass was now entitled to any benefits from Sher Singh which would be computed in terms of money by the Labour courts The patitioner was a Gold-smith by profession and was working as diecutter under the name and style of Sher Singh Verma in a rented premises at Nai Sarak, Delhi. He carried on his work without the help of any employee.

(4) Tapeshwari Dass who was a man of equal status and skill merely helped Sher Singh as a co-worker and used to perform the job work intrusted to him by the petitioner on contract basis as an independent contractor. Whenever there was some surplus work with Sher Singh he used to pass it on to Tapeshwari Dass as well as other Gold-smiths for completion and such Goldsmiths including Tapeshwari Dass were paid for the job done. According to the petitioner the relationship of employer and workman never existed between the parties. The petitioner also stated that he was left without any work with effect from 10th January 1963 due to the Gold Control policy of the Government of India and he, therefore, surrendered the possession of the premises after obtaining a certificate of being a bona fide displaced Goldsmith from the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, and

(5) Tapeshwari Dass had also stolen Rs. 2,500. 00 and a gold tagari on 9th September 1963 belonging to Sher Singh and he had already lodged a report with the police. On the above facts, the Labour Court framed the-following three issues :- 1. Was applicant a "workman" as defined in Industrial Disputes Act. Did the relationship of Master and servant exist between parties ? If so, what was his salary ? 2. Was the business closed on account of unavoidable circumstances beyond control of employer ? If so its effect ? 3. To what benefit, if any, is applicant entitled ?

( 2 ) THE Labour Court came to the conclusion that (a) Tapeshwari Dass was entitled to make an application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act ; (b) closure of business by the petitioner was due to the causes beyond his control and Tapeshwari Dass was, therefore, entitled only to three months wages as retirement compensation; and (3) Tapeshwari Dass was drawing a salary of Rs. 250. 00 and therefore he was entitled to Rs. 750. 00.

( 3 ) MR. D. D. SHARMA, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the Labour Court on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to award the relief. He says