DAKSHINA BHARATHA NAVIKATHOZHILALI UNION Vs. PUMBA RIVER FACTORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey, held in Industrial Dispute No. 148 of 1956 that the men concerned -- represented by the Dakshina Bharatha Navika Thozhilali Union -- were not workmen as defined in S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matters referred to it by the Government under S.10(1)(c) of the Act. It is that decision that is challenged before us by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) According to the petitioners we should evaluate the evidence adduced in the case as we would in the ease of a first appeal, the controversy being not as regards ordinary facts but "jurisdictional facts" which go to the very root of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. We have been taken through the entire evidence adduced in the case and even assuming, without deciding, that the approach to the evidence should be the approach of a court of first appeal we see no reason to differ from the conclusion reached by the Tribunal.

(3.) The question that arose for decision before the Tribunal was whether the men concerned were independent contractors and their workmen as contended by the 1st respondent, the Pamba River Factory or the workmen of the respondent factory itself as contended by the petitioners before us. Ext. M7 is the application for registration which has to be filed before the company before a boat is registered. That clearly shows that the contract is really a contract for the hire of boats, not a contract for the employment of the owners of the boats or their workmen as the workmen of the factory.