SILVER JUBILEE TAILORING HOUSE AND OTHERS versus CHIEF INSPECTOR OF SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 25-09-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
747 
SILVER JUBILEE TAILORING HOUSE AND OTHERS 
v. 
CHIEF INSPECTOR OF SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS AND 
ANOTHER 
September 25, 1973 
(K. K. MATHEW, M. H. BEG AND A. K. MUKHERJEA, JJ.J 
Andhra Pradesh 'Telengana Area' Shops and Establishments Act 1951, Sections 
2(14)-Determination of relationship of employer and emp!<Jyee-Rigitt to con-
trol 1nanner of work 1101 an ·exclusive test-Factors relevant for determination 
indicated- -Court 1nust balance the 1·arious factors. 
· 
The second respondent representing the tailors working with the appellants 
filed certain claims under s. 37-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area), 
Shops and Establishments Act r/w s. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, 
contending that they were the employees of the appellants and that the Andhru 
Act ·,vas applicable. The facts as established on evidence \Vere as follows : 
·Tue petitioners generaUy attended the shops every day, if there was work. 
The rate depended upon the skill of the \Vorker and the natµre of the work. When 
the cloth is given for stitching to a worker, after it has been cut, the worker was· 
told how he could stitch it. If he did not stitch it according to the instructions, 
the employer reject~d the work and would generally ask the worker to re""Stitch 
the same. When the work is not according to the instructions, generally, no fur· 
ther work would be given to him. If a worker did not want to come for work 
t0 the shop on a particular day, he did not make any application for leave nor 
was there afly obhgatior. on his part to inform the employer that he would not 
attend the work on that day. If there was no work, the employee was free to 
leave the shop before the shop closed. Almost ali O:i.e workers worked in the 
shop. Some workers were allowed to take the cloth fe;r stitching at their homes 
on certain days, with the permission of the proprietor. The sewing machine 
installed in the .shop belonged to the proprietor of the shop and the permises of 
the shop in which the work was carried on also belonged to him. The material 
part of Section 2 (14) reads as follow.:-
"Person employed means (i) in the case of a shop a person wholly or 
principally employed therein in connection with, the business of the 
shop." 
• 
The Chief Inspector or Shops and Establishments and the High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh held that the tailors were the employees of the app<llants and 
that the Andhra Pradesh Sh~ps and Establishment Act applied to them. 
Rejecting the appeal, 
HELD : (!) During the last two decades the emphasis in the field is shifted 
from and no longer rests exclusively or so stronglv upon the question of control. 
ln decidin3 upon the question of relationship of the employer and an employee, 
"control" is obviously an important factor and in many cases, it may still be a 
decisive factor. 
But it is · wrong to say that in 
evefy case it is 
decisive. It is now no mor.e than a factor although an important one. A search 
for a formula in the nature of a single test will not serve the useful purpose, and 
all factors that have been referred to in the cases on topic, should be considered 
to tell a contract of service. 
Clearly, not all these factors would be relevant in 
all th""" cases or have the same weight in all cases. It is equally clear that no 
magic formula can be propounded which factors shoU.ld, in any case. be treated 
as determining ones. The plain fact is that in a large number of cases, the Court 
can only perform a balancing operation weighing up the factors which txJint in 
one direction and balancing them against those pointing in the opposite direction. 
[756H-757C] 
(2) The 'Contrul' idea was more suited to the agricultural society prior io 
Indnstrial Rovolution. It reflects a state of society in which the ownership of the 
means of Droduction coincided with the profession of technical knowledge and 
skill in which. that knowledge and skill was largelv acquired bv b•ine handed 
down from one generation to the next by oral tradition and not by being systcma-
74.8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1974 j 1 s.c.R. 
tically imparted in institutions of learning_ from uniyersities do'!D to the te~cal 
A 
schools 
The exclusive test of control Would not 1n modem times be consistent 
with th~ Chahging modes and method of production and division of labour. [7'6F] 
Casaidy v. Ministry of Health, (1951 1 All E.R. 574, 579, Montreal v. Mon-
treal Locomotive Works Ltd. el-al, (1947] 1 D.L.R. 161 at p.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.