9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (4) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yers and employees between them and the workmen, the reference itself was in- competent and there could be no industrial dispute between them and the workmen concerned, their case being that the workmen concerned were the workmen of independent con- tractors. It was found by the tribunal on the basis of evidence led before it by both parties that the modus operandi with respect to manufacture of bidis in the appellants' concerns was that contractors took leaves and tobacco from the appellants and employed workmen for manufacturing bidis. After bidis were manufactured, the contractors took them back from the workmen 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 were called contractors' factories. The contractors kept no attendance register for the workmen. There was also no condition that they should come and go at fixed hours. Nor were the workmen bound to come for work every day; sometimes the workmen informed the contractors if they wanted to be absent and sometimes they did not. The contractors however said that they could take no ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement by the appellants to escape such statutory duties and obligations, as may lie on them under the Factories Act or under the Madras Shops and Establishments Act. Finally on a review of the entire evidence, the tribunal found that this system of manufacture of bidis through the so-called contractors was a mere camouflage devised by the appellants. The tribunal also found that the contractors were indigent persons and served no particular duties and discharged no special functions. Raw materials were supplied by the appellants to be manufactured into finished products by the workmen and the contractors had no other function except to take the raw materials to the workmen and gather the manufactured material. It therefore held that the so-called contractors were not independent contractors and were mere employees or were functioning as branch managers of various factories, their remuneration being dependent upon the work turned out. It therefore came to the conclusion that the bidi workers were the employees of the appellants and not of the so- called contractors who were themselves nothing more than employees or branch managers of the appellants. It finally held that reduction in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he findings of the tribunal came to the conclusion that the so-called contractors were really the agents of the appellants and that there was no utter lack of control by the appellants on the bidi workers who actually rolled the bidi. The appeal court also found that the intermediaries were impecunious and according to the evidence could hardly afford to have factories of their own. It also found that the evidence revealed that the appellants took the real hand in settling all matters relating to the workers, and the intermediary was a mere cipher and the real control over the workers was that of the appellants. The appeal court therefore held that the appellants were the real employers of the workmen and the so-called intermediaries or so-called independent contractors who were in some cases ex-employees, were no more than agents of the appellants. In this view of the matter the appeal court held that the conclusion reached by the tribunal that the intermediaries were merely branch managers appointed by the management and the relationship of employer and employees subsisted between the appellants and bidi rollers was correct. The appeals were therefore allowed, and the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... radesh([1958] S.C.R. 1340). That was a case of bidi manufacture, and the question that arose for determination was whether certain persons known as sattedars and those who worked under the sattedars were workmen or not. It was found that the sattedars undertook to supply bidis by manufacturing them in their own factories or by entrusting the work to third parties at a price to be paid by the management after delivery and approval. Reference was made to the principles laid down in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Limited's case([1957] S.C.R. 152) to determine whether the persons employed were workmen or not, and it was found that the sattedars were not under the control of the factory management and could manufacture the bidis wherever they pleased. It was therefore held that the coolies were neither employed by the management directly nor by the management through the sattedars. A special feature of that case was that none of the workmen under the sattedars worked in factories. The bidis could be manufactured anywhere and there was no obligation on the sattedars to work in the factory of the management. The sattedars were even entitled to distribute tobacco to the workers for ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e last case to which reference has been made is again a bidi manufacturing case, namely, Bhikusa Yamasa Kashtriya (P) Limited v. Union of India([1964] 1 S.C.R. 860). In that case the main question raised was about the constitutionality of s. 85 of the Factories Act and the notification issued by the State of Maharashtra thereunder. The Constitutionality of s. 85 and the notification made thereunder was upheld. The question there involved was about the application of s. 79 of the, Factories Act with reference to leave and the difficulty felt in Shankar Balaji Waje's case([1957] S.C.R. 152) as to how leave could be calculated in the circumstances was explained with reference% to the decision in Shri Birdhichand Sharma's case([1961] 3 S.C.R. 161). It is in the light of these decisions that we have to decide whether the workmen who work under the so-called independent contractors in these cases are the workmen of the appellants. It has been found by the tribunal and this view has been confirmed by the appeal court that so-called independent contractors were mere agents or branch managers of the appellants. We see no reason to disagree with this view taken by the tribunal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Act. We are not however concerned with that aspect of the matter in the present appeals. But there can be no doubt that the workers employed by the so-called contractors are really the workmen of the appellants who are employed through their agents or servants whom they choose to call independent contractors. It is however urged that there is no control by even the agent over the bidi workers. Now the evidence shows that the bidi workers are permitted to take the leaves homes in order to cut them so that they might be in proper shape and size for next day's work; but the real work of filling the leaves with tobacco (i.e. rolling the bidis) can only be done in the so-called factory of the so-called independent contractor. No tobacco is ever given to the workers to be taken home to be rolled into bidis as and when they liked. They have to attend the so-called factory of the so-called independent contractor to do the real work of rolling bidis. As was pointed out by this Court in Shri Birdhichand Sharma's case([1961] 3 S.C.R. 161) the work is of such a simple nature that supervision all the time is not required. In Birdhichand Sharma's case(1) supervision was made th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
