Modella Knitwear Limited vs Ram Lal and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.

1 In this writ petition the petitioner which is a firm, is seeking the relief of quashing the award passed by the Labour Court, Ludhiana dated 12th May, 1982 (Annexure P-8) by issuing a writ of Certiorari under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

According to the respondents 1 and 2, they were employed in the petitioner''s firm and their services were illegally terminated on 13.2.1980 without any inquiry or payment of retrenchment compensation. As the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act were not followed, the orders of termination were illegal. They raised an industrial dispute under the Act which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The petitioner''s firm took the plea before the Labour Court that the respondents 1 and 2 were not the employees of the petitioner''s firm but they were doing work on contract basis and they used to do the work of taking material from the petitioner''s firm and the respondents 1 and 2 were being paid for the services rendered on the bills submitted by them and there was no control or supervision over them and, therefore, they are not workmen and the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act are not attracted. On a consideration of the material placed before, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondents 1 and 2 are the workmen of the petitioner''s firm and they are not independent contractors and their services were terminated without following the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act and, therefore, the termination was illegal. Accordingly, the Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the workmen with continuity of service and back wages to the extent of 33%. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner''s firm filed this writ petition.

It is not disputed that the petitioner''s firm used to supply the material to the workmen for manufacturing of hosiery goods and the workmen used to do the work in the factory premises of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the design used to be given by the management and the workmen had to prepare the material according to the requirement of the petitioner''s firm. It is also on record that the workmen have to prepare the hosiery goods according to the design and if the goods were not upto the mark then the workmen had to prepare the same. It is in the evidence of Shri Bansal MW.3 who has been examined by the petitioner''s firm as its witness that the factory had supervision of the supply of the material and the finished goods and the workmen used to come in the morning and go in the evening. Thus, it is clear that the workers used to attend the factory premises at the stipulated period and they were not at liberty to come to the factory of their own choice and the material was not allowed to be taken out of the factory premises and the workmen have to work only within the premises of the petitioner''s firm. Thus, it is clear from the evidence on record that the petitioner''s firm has supervision and control over the work of the workmen and that the workers were not free to work according to their whims and fancies and only to the satisfaction of the petitioner''s firm in the premises of the petitioner''s firm under the direct control and management of the petitioner''s firm. In Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and Others Vs. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments and Another, , the Supreme Court held that there was a relationship of master and servant because of a right in the employer to reject the work done and it reiterated that the degree of control and supervision would be different in different kinds of work. In P.M. Patel and Sons and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the Supreme Court adopted the test of rejection of defective bidies for determining whether the bidi workers were the employees of the manufacturer or the independent contractors relying on earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, .

In view of the pronouncements of the Supreme Court referred to above, it has to be held that the respondents are the workmen of the petitioner''s firm and they are not independent contractors.

Though a plea was taken that the petitioners firm was closed but there was no evidence to that effect as observed by the Labour Court. On a consideration of the material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the award passed by the Labour Court. The writ deserves liable to be dismissed.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without costs.