LexAHMEDABAD MFG. & CALICO PTG. CO. LTD. versus RAM TAHEL RAMNAND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- A B c D E F G AHMEDABAD MFG. & CALICO PTG. CO. LTD. v. RAM TAHEL RAMNAND & ORS. April 14, 1972 (C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DuA, JJ.] 185 Bombay lndu:mjal Relation. A.Ct 11 of 1947,,s. 3(13) and (14)- Malls employed ~n4~r a contractor to look after garden adjacent to a factory whether 'emplo,vetf of factory-Maintenance of garden wlutlwr work ordinarily part of undertak/n[f-Considerations of social ;ru1ke, relevancy of-Constitution of India, A.rt. 221-Jurlsdiction of High Court under A.rt. 133(1)(c)-Certificat•-High Court must give reasons. The respondents ""re malis who under a contractor looked after the maintenance of a garden adjacent to but outside the premises of the appellant company which produced textiles. In an application before the Labour Court the ~nts claimed that they were ~ployees of the company within the meaning of s. 3(13) <'f the Bombay Ip.dustria1 Relations Act 11 of 1947 and therefore entitled to dearnell.'l allowanc.r. The Labour Court rejected the claim on the ground that the respoodents worked under a contractor. On appeal the Industrial Court held that the company was under no legal obligation to maintain the ga,rdeo llDd theref<i:c the respondents did not fall within the deflnition of employee. The High Court in a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution· held that statutory obligation was not a necessary condition of an activity being considered a part of the ordinary worl< of an undertaking but what had to be seen was whether the activity was reasonably attributable to the undertaking in . its usual and ckdinary course in the conduct Of the business or undertaking. Since the appellant company contended before the High Court for the first time that the garden area in question did not pertain only to the ..ppCllant but to several other employers tho Hirb Court remanded the matter to the Industrial Court folr a fresh decision in the light of the obseTVQtiOIIS of High Court. The appellant com- pany in appeal by certificate contended that the High Court had csoceeded its jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution, that a person em- ployed through an independent contractor could not be "1l employee and that mamtenance of a garden could not be considered to be wd'k which was ordinarily a part of the undertaki.lg within the meaning of &. J(14) of the A<:t. The respondents raised "' preliminary objection that tho order of the High Court was not a 'fine] order' and, therefore, the oettiftcate gl'anted by the High Court under Art. 133 was incompetent. HEID: (i) In this case Art, 227 appears to have 1--uaed as a subltitute for Art. 226 for quashing the ordera of the subordinate tn"bo- nals. If, therefore, while ~ng of the petition Under Art. 227 the High. Court finally settles some points then to that extent the impuaned order may be considered to operate as ~ final order just as an order under Art. 226.would. [194F] (ii) The mere grant of a certificate would not preclude this Court H from determining whether the conditions pre-requisite for the grant are satisfied. It is. theref<*'e, always desirable and expedi:mt · for die Hip Court to give its reasons for granting the certificate. ibat wqe1d unst Ibis Court better in appreciating if such conditions are satislled. U92HJ 13-L U08SupCI/72 186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1973) l S.C.R W~·ryam Singh v. Amar Nath, [1954} $.C.R. 566, Tarapur & Co. v. A M/s. V/O Tractors Export, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 699, Asbestos Cement Ud. v. Savarkar, A.LR. 1971 S.C. 100, Ramerh v. Ganda Lal, A.I.R. 1966 S.C . .1445 at 1449 and Surinder Nath v. Stiphen (P) Ltd., (1966) 3 S.C.R. 458, referred to. (iii) As held by this Court in J.K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills an employee engaged in any work or operation which is incidentally connect- ed with main ingustrv is .a workman if other requirements of s. 2(s) of B the Industrial Disputes Act 14 of 1947, are satisfied. The bunglows and gardens on which the ma/is in that case wdrked were a kind oI amenity supplied by th.e .. mills to its officers and on this reasoning the ma/is were held. to be engaged in operations incidentally connected with the main in- dustry earned on by the employer. The High Court rightly P~lied on thai decision in arriving at its conclusion in the present case that tne work/!rs in drder to come within the definition of 'employee' C need not necessarily be directly connected with j:he manufacture of textiJ.~ fabr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.