AKIL Vs. R K BAWEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Farid Ahmed alleged that he had been in the employment of Haji Mohd. Akil, a blacksmith from 1957. For the first three years he was paid at Rs. 45 p.m. and then at Rs. 90 per month. The petitioner paid him in all-an amount of Rs. 1036 and there remained a balance of Rs. 6524 of unpaid wages for the period ending 31-5-1967. When the respondent demanded this money in June, 1967, the petitioner terminated his service on or about 10-6-1967 without any show cause notice. He filed a claim on 19-10-1967 before the Conciliation Officer alleging wrongful termination of service. The case was discussed and the parties arrived on 28-11-1967 at the following agreement : (i) The management agree to re-instate the workman with immediate effect on the existing terms and conditions. (ii) 50% wages shall be paid for the period workman remained unemployed. (iii) The workman will be paid earned wages if due at the existing terms.

(2.) On the basis of this settlement the respondent made an applications on 26-12-1967 and 6-1-1969 to the Labour Court under Section 33(2) of-the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that the reported for duty, but the petitioner did not permit him to resume duty and he" was entitled to recover certain amounts in pursuance of the aforesaid settlement.

(3.) The petitioner in his reply before the Labour Court denied that the applicant was ever in his employment. He also repudiated the conciliation settlement as was alleged. The learned Labour Court found that some disputes arose between the parties as a result of which the matter was referred to a Panchayat in the first instance. Farid Ahmed made a statement before the Panchayat on 2-8-1967 that formerly he was being paid 12 annas per day. Thereafter it was increased to Re. 1 per day and then again his wages were increased. During the course of the alleged employment he did leave his service several times and went to his village, and also took service of some other person during that period. On 9-8-1967 Haji Mohd. Akil stated before the Panchayat that the respondent had engaged him for the purpose of turning the wheel at his workshop on 10 annas per day. The father of the respondent, however, requested him to train him as a blacksmith and for that purpose he allowed him to work at his shop. He also gave him meals. There was no agreement for payment of any wages, though whenever the respondent required some money, he used to pay. The Labour Court, therefore, found that the applicant did work at the shop of the respondent from his childhood for 7 or 8 years but only to learn the work of a blacksmith. The petitioner used to pay some money for the subsistence of the respondent whenever the pupil needed. But subsequently, when he refused to pay even this amount, a dispute arose which was referred to the Panchas but the Labour Court rejected the case of the respondent that in pursuance of a decision of the Panchayat Rs. 650 were paid to him on 18-9-1967. The learned Labour Court found that the relationship of employer and employee did not subsist between them when the respondent joined the petitioner, but it seems that subsequently the petitioner started treating him as his employee. It held that the petitioner was bound by the settlement and under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act directed payment: (1) From 29-11-1967 to 31-12-1968 Rs. 1170 @ Rs. 90 p.m. (2) From 1-6-1967 to 9-6-1967 Rs. 27 @ Rs. 90 p.m. (3) From 10-6-1967 to 28-11-1967 @ Rs. 45 p.m. Rs. 253. 50 TOTAL Rs. 1450-50