ACHUTHA ACHAR Vs. SHARADA JEWELLERY MART

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Achutha Achar who was a goldsmith in Mangalore is the petitioner before us. He made a complaint that he was a workman in a firm known as the Sharada Jewellery Mart in Mangalore and that his services were illegally terminated. In consequence there was a reference under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the labour court which posed the question whether he was entitled to reinstatement with back-wages and other reliefs. The management denied that Achutha Achar was a workman and asserted that he was only an independent contractor. The labour court which accepted this contention rejected the reference declining jurisdiction. It is this decision of the labour court which is called in question by the petitioner who asks us to quash it by certiorari.

(2.) The labour court discussed the evidence given by Rameshachari on behalf of the management and that given by Achutha Achar and his witness vittal. Rameshachari on behalf of the management gave evidence that, according to the course of business obtaining in his firm, gold would be entrusted to the goldsmiths for making jewels of which a record was made in what is called a workers' memo. It was said that after the execution of work, the goldsmiths used to deliver the jewels and the wages payable to the goldsmiths would be credited to their account. Those wages, it was stated, were mutually agreed upon depending upon the work to be done in accordance with the specifications. Rameshachari proceeded to state that the goldsmiths used to work in the premises of the management to suit the convenience of the customers, although, sometimes, the goldsmiths used to take the gold to their own houses and that there were no fixed hours of work and that the goldsmiths were free to work at any time without being subject to the control or supervision by the management.

(3.) Achutha Achar and Vittal gave evidence to the contrary. Achutha Achar admitted that Exs. W. 2 series represented the memos. issued to him form time to time by the management in respect of the work to be executed by him, but he stated that he was under a duty to work during specified hours and could not leave the premises without the permission of the proprietor who used to watch his work. Vittal gave similar evidence.