LexDHARANGADHARA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. versus STATE OF SAURASHTRA.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1957) DHARANGADHARA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. "· STATE OF SAURASHTRA. (BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S. K. DAs and GoVINDA MENON, JJ) Industrial J)ispute-Workman-lndependent contractor-Test- Distinction-Agarias,, if tvorkmen-Finding by the Industrial Tribu- nal, if a question of fact-Such findinQ, if and rvhen can be set aside- lndustria/ Disfml_!s Act (XIV af 1947), s. 2(s)-Constitrition of India, Art. 226. The appellants '"'·ere lessees holding a license for the manufac- ture of salt on the demised lands. The salt was manufactured by a class of professional labourers known as agarias £Tom rain water that got mixed up with saline matter in the soil. The work was seasonal in nature and commenced in October after the rains and continued till June. Thereafter the agarias left for their own villages for cultivation \Vork. The demised lands were divided into plots called pattas and allotted to the agarias with a sum of Rs. 400/· for each patta to n1eet the initial expenses. Generally the same patta was allotted to the same agaria every year and if a patta was extensive in area, it was allotted to two agarias working in partner- ship. After the manufacture of salt the agarias were paid at the rate of 5 as. 6 pies per maund. At the end of each season the accounts were settled and the agarias paid the balance due to then1. The agarias who worked themselves with the members of their families were free to engage extra labour on their own account and the appellants had no concern therewith. No hours of work were prescribed, no muster rolls 1naintained, nor were working hours controlled by the appellants. There were no rules as regards leave or holidays and the agarias \Yere free to go out of the factory after making arrangements for the 1nanufacture of salt. The question for decision was whether in such circumstances the agarjas could be held to be workmen as defined by s. 2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, as found by the Industrial Tribunal and agreed with by the High Court or they were independent contrac~ tors and the reference for adjudication made by the Government com.petent under s. I 0 of the Act. Held, that the finding of the Industrial Tribunal that the agarjas were ,workmen within the meaning of s. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 was correct and the reference: was competent. The real test whether a person was a workman was whether he had been employed by the employer and a relationship of employer and employee or master and servant subsisted between them and it was well settled that the prima fade test of such ; S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 153 relationship was the existence of the right in the employer not merely to direct what work was to be done but also to control the manner in which it was to be done, the nature or extent of such control varying in different industries and being by its nature incapable of being precisely defined. The correct approach, therefore, was to consider whether, having regard to the nature of the work, there was due control and supervision of the employer. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins & Griffeth (Liver- pool) Ltd., and Another (1947] l A.C. 1, and Simmons v. Heath Laundry Company (1910] 1 K.B. 543 referred to. The question whether the relation between the parties was :me as between an employer and employee or master and servant was a pure question of fact and where the Industrial Tribunal 1:!.aving jurisdiction to decide that question came to a finding, such finding of fact was not open to question in a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution unless it could be shown to be wholly un- warranted by the evidence. Ebrahim Aboobakar v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property [1952 ]' S.C.R. 696, referred to. Performing Right, Society Ltd. etc. v. Mitchell and Booker (Plaise De Danse) [1924] l K.B. 762, not followed. A person could be a workman even though he did piece-work md was paid not per day but by the job or employed his own labour and paid for it. Sadler v. Henlock (1855) 119 E.R. 209 and Blake v. Thirst ~1863) 32 L. J. (Exchequer) 188, referred to. The broad distinction between a workman and an independent :ontractor was that while the former would be bound by agree- ment to work personally and would so work the latter was to get die work done by others. A workman would not cease to be so !Veh though
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.