In captioned two petitions award dated 22.1.1992 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 684 of 1989 is placed under challenge. The learned Tribunal, vide impugned award, dismissed the Reference (IT) No. 684 of 1989 on the principal ground that the claimants cannot be termed employees of the opponent Aabad Dairy (hereinafter referred to as the “Dairy” which term, for sake of brevity and convenience, shall include Municipal Corporation and G.D.D.C.) and that consequently Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the demand and to decide the reference.

1.1 Before proceeding further it is necessary to note, at the outset, that the dairy and its industrial establishment as well as its activities are closed since many years. Actually, the assets of the opponent dairy have been disposed of pursuant to the orders passed by Board of Industrial and Finance Reconstruction (“BIFR” for short) and the creditors have been paid their dues out of sale proceeds of the assets. Thus, neither any activity is being undertaken nor the establishment itself is in existence. It is equally relevant to mention that the system of engaging “booth operators” for milk distribution was discontinued even before the establishment actually came to be closed down pursuant to the permission granted by the specified authority under Section 25(o)(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “I.D. Act”).

1.2 First petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 2795 of 1993 is filed by the claimants/union which sponsored the dispute and demand of the concerned claimants (hereinafter referred to as “booth operators” or the “claimants”) whereas second petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 6497 of 1993 is filed by an individual booth operator who is aggrieved by the same award. It appears that the said individual petitioner had raised dispute which was referred for adjudication in Reference (IT) No. 121 of 1974 (New No. 200 of 1982). The learned Labour Court rejected the reference vide award dated 17.2.1993. The said award dated 17.2.1993 is placed under challenge by said individual petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 6497 of 1993. The said individual booth operator has stated that his petition may be heard and decided along with Special Civil Application No. 2795 of 1993. Actually in the said Special Civil Application No. 6497 of 1993 individual petitioner has adopted the narration of facts as well as the grounds in Special Civil Application No. 2795 of 1993. In this view of the matter both the petitions are decided by this common decision.

2. So as to appreciate principal grievance of the booth operators against the conclusion and decision of the learned Tribunal, it is necessary to take into account the factual backdrop which gave rise to the dispute and the controversy between the parties and challenge against the award.

2.1 The respondent dairy was established and run by the Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad. It is claimed that the Municipal Corporation decided to supply good quality of milk within the territory of municipal corporation and for that purpose the corporation established opponent dairy. Establishing and/or running and managing dairy and/or selling milk are not primary or statutory or principal or essential duty and function of dairy. It is also claimed that the dairy decided to sell milk by engaging persons on payment of commission. The dairy claimed that it had engaged “agents” or “independent contractors” (hereinafter referred to as “the claimants” or “the booth operators”) to sell milk at milk booths in different localities within the limits of the corporation and for that purpose the dairy had set-up several milk distribution centers (booths) in different localities. According to the arrangement the dairy delivered milk from its establishment to said distribution centers (