LexD. C. DEWAN MOHIDEEN SAHIB AND SONS versus THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1964 .April 6 646 SUPREME COu"'RT REPORTS [19641 D. C. DEWAN MOHIDEEN SAHIB AND SONS v . THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MADRAS [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., K. N. W ANCHOO AND K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.] Industrial Dispute-Employer and Emp!oyee-Relaticnship -Depends upon circumstances of each case. On a reference of industrial disputes between the appel- lants, the proprietors of bidi concerns, and their workmen, the appellants contended before the Industrial Tribunal that the workers in question were not their workmen but were the workmen of independent contractors. The Tribunal found on the basis of evidence led, that the modus operandi was that contractors took leaves and tobacco from the appellant and employed workmen for manufacturing bidis. After bdis were manufactured, the contractors took them back from the work- men and delivered them to the appellants. The workmen took the leaves home and cut them there; however the process of actual rolling by filling the leaves with tobacco took place in what was called contractors' factories. The contractors kept no attendance register for the workmen, there was no condition for their coming and going at fixed hours, nor were they bound to come for work every day: sometimes they informed the contractors if they wanted to be absent and some times they did not. The con- tractors said that they could take no action if the workmen absented themselves even without leave. The payment was made to the workmen at piece rates after the bidis woere• delivered to the appellants. The system was that the appellant • paid a certain sum for the manufactured bidis, after deduct· ing therefrom the cost of tobacco and the leaves already fixed. to the contractors who in their turn paid to the workmen, who rolled bidis, their wages. Whatf)ver remained after paying the workmen would be contractors' 'commission for the work done. The Tribunal held that there was no sale either of the raw· materials or of the finished products, for, according to the agreement, if the bidis were not rolled, raw materials had to te returned to the appellants and the contractors were forbid- den from selling the raw materials to anyone else. Further the manufactured bidis' could only be delivered to the appel- lants who Siu.pplied the ra~N materials. Further price of ra\\" materials and finished products fixed by the appellants always remained the same and never :fluct11ated according to market rate. The Tribunal concluded that the bidi workers ""re the employees of the appellants and not of the so-called contrac- • tors who were themselves nothing more then employees o-· branch managers of the appellants. Thereupon, the appellants filed writ petitions in the High Court, which held that neither the bidi roller nor the intermediary was an employee of tho appellants and allowed the writ petitions. On appeal by the workmen the appeal court allowed the appeal and restored the order and conclusion of the Tribunal. On appeal by certi- ficate: Held: On the .facts found the appeal court w•is right in holding that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the intermediaries were merely branch managers appointed by the· 7 S.C.R. SUPREl\IE COUHT REPOHTS 647 management and the relationship of employers and employees subsisted between the appellants and the bidi rollers was ·correct. Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd., v. State of Saurash- tra, [1957] S.C.R. 152, Shri Chintsman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1958] S.C.R. 1340, Shri Birdhiclwnd Sharma v. First Civil Judge Nagpur, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 161, Shankar Ba!a.ji Waje v. State of Maharashtra, (1962] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 249 and Bikusu Yamasa Kaslitriya (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, [1964] 1 S.C.R. 860, discussed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 721 and 791 of 1963. Appeals by certificate and special leave from the judgment and order dated February 16, 1962 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 16 and 15 of l 959 respectively. V. P. Raman and R. Gmwpathy Iyer, for the appellant lin C.A. No. 721 of 1953). G. B. Pai, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant lin C.A. No. 791/63). T. S. Venkataraman, for the respondent No. 2 (in both the appeals). April 6, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 196l D.O. Dewa" lll ohidcen Sahib and Sons v. The Ind11 . .strial Tribitnal, Madrm WANCHoo; J.-These two appeals by special leave raise Wam:hoo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.