DHARANGADHRA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. V. STATE OF SAURASHTRA, AIR 1957 SC 264
FACTS
The appellants are lessees of the Salt Works from the erstwhile State of Dharangadhara and also hold a licence for the manufacture of salt on the land.
The salt is manufactured not from seawater but from rain water which soaks down the surface and becomes impregnated with saline matter. The operations are seasonal and commence sometime in October at the close of the monsoon.
In about 1950, disputes arose between the agarias and the appellants as to the conditions under which the agarias should be engaged by the appellants in the manufacture of salt. The Government of Saurashtra, by its letter of Reference dated November 5, 1951, referred the disputes for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Saurashtra State, Rajkot.
This question was tried as a preliminary issue and by its order dated August 30, 1952, the Tribunal held that the agarias were workmen within the meaning of the Act and that the reference was intra vires and adjourned the matter for hearing on the merits. Against this order the appellants preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 302 of 1952 before the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, and having failed to obtain stay of further proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal pending the appeal, they moved the High Court of Saurashtra.
The learned Judges of the High Court agreed with the decision of the Industrial Tribunal that the agarias were workmen within Section 2(s) of the Act and accordingly dismissed the application for writ. They, however, granted a certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution and that is how the appeal comes before us.
ISSUE
Whether the agarias working in the Salt Works at Kuda in the Rann of Cutch are workmen within the meaning of the term as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947?
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:
The appellants contested the proceedings on the ground, inter alia, that the status of the agarias was that of independent contractors and not of workmen and that the State was not competent to refer their disputes for adjudication under Section 10 of the Act.
Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a passage from Batt’s Law of Master and Servant 4th Edn., at p. 10:
“The line between an independent contractor and a servant is often a very fine one; it is a mixed question of fact and law, and the judge has to find and select the facts which govern the true relation between the parties as to the control of the work, and then he or the jury has to say whether the person employed is a servant or a contractor.”
It was also argued that even if all the facts found by the Tribunal are accepted they only lead to the conclusion that the agarias are independent contractors and that the finding, therefore, that they are workmen is liable to be set aside on the ground that there is no evidence to support it.
Learned counsel laid particular stress on two features in this case which, in his submission, were consistent only with the position that the agarias are independent contractors. One is that they do piece-work and the other that they employ their own labour and pay for it.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the relationship between the appellants and the agarias was a pure question of fact, that the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide that question and had come to its own conclusion in regard thereto, that the High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, was not competent to set aside the finding of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunal and that the Court here entertaining an appeal from the decision of the High Court, should also not interfere with that finding of fact.
HELD
Findings of the Industrial Tribunal
The nature or extent of control which is requisite to establish the relationship of employer and employee must necessarily vary from business to business and is by its very nature incapable of precise definition.
The correct method of approach, therefore, would be to consider whether having regard to the nature of the work there was due control and supervision by the employer.
The Industrial Tribunal on a consideration of the facts in the light of the principles enunciated above concluded that though certain features which are usually to be found in a contract of service were absent, that was due to the nature of the industry and that on the whole the status of the agarias was that of workmen and not independent contractors
The Industrial Tribunal concluded that the supervision and control exercised by the appellants extended to all stages of the manufacture from beginning to end.
Court’s Opinion
The decision of the Tribunal on a question of fact which it has jurisdiction to determine is not liable to be questioned in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution unless at the least it is shown to be fully unsupported by evidence.
The Court opined that there were materials on the record based on which it could be concluded that the agarias are not independent contractors but workmen within the meaning of the Act.
In the instant case, the agarias are professional labourers. They work along with the members of their families in the production of salt and would, therefore, be workmen. The fact that they are free to engage others to assist them and pay for them would not, given the above authorities, affect their status as workmen.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Industrial Tribunal's decision, recognizing the workers as 'workmen' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Court accordingly sees no ground for interfering with that decision and dismisses this appeal with costs.