NARAYANAN Vs. LABOUR COURT ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE workmen involved in ID No. 4/97 before the Central Government Labour Court, Ernakulam is the petitioner herein. He is challenging Ext.P1 award passed by the Labour court in the said ID. The issue referred for adjudication was:

(2.) OUT of the two workmen involved in the dispute only the petitioner has chosen to approach this court. The contention of the petitioner before the Labour court was that the petitioner was that being regularly employed as a dhobi by the Railways and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to absorption in regular service. The Railways took the stand that the petitioner was not an employee of the Railways at all. According to them, whenever there was need for washing clothes, the petitioner would collect soiled clothes from the railways, wash the same and return it , for which the petitioner would be paid charges for such washing on piece rate basis. Therefore they took this stand there is no employer-employee relationship between the railways and the petitioner and that the petitioner was only an independent contractor.

(3.) I am of opinion that as rightly pointed out by the Labour court, the petitioner was not able to produce any evidence to show that there was master-servant relationship between the railways and the petitioner. From the award it is clear that the petitioner used to collect soiled clothes from the Railways, wash the same at his place and return the same after ironing, for which washing charges were being paid at piece rate basis. The contention of the petitioner was that there is supervision by the railway officials on the work done by the petitioner, which would spell out master- servant relationship. But it is admitted that the petitioner is washing the clothes at his place, where no railway official is deputed. What he contends is that , the railways have a right to reject the washed cloths, if the petitioner does not do the job entrusted to him properly, which amounts to supervision. The right to reject the washed clothes does not mean that the petitioner can take away the clothes. Only consequence is that the petitioner would be denied washing charges, if the washing is not proper. Perhaps, if the clothes are damaged in the course of washing, the petitioner may even be liable to pay compensation to the railways for the damage caused to the clothes. The witness of the workman had deposed in cross examination that the workman involved in the ID is proffesional dhobies, there is no specified time for washing and nobody would accused them of unauthorised absence, if they do not turn up to take the soiled clothes for washing . In fact, the petitioner collects the clothes only once or twice in a month on any day of his choice from the Railways. Therefore the conclusion reached by the labour court that the relationship between the petitioner and the railways was one of service provider and customer, does not appear to be perverse at all. This court can interfere with findings of facts in an award passed by the labour court under the Industrial Dispute Act only if the findings of facts entered therein are demonstrably perverse. After a perusal of Ext.P1 award I do not find any reason to find any perversity in the findings of the fact entered therein. In view of the said findings of the fact I do not find any reason to accept the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was an employee of the Railways. Therefore I do not find any merit in the challenge against the Ext.P1 award. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.