BHARGAVAN NAIR Vs. KOLAPPAN ASSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent was a caretaker looking after the immovable properties of the petitioner, besides rendering other services to him, and was being paid at the rate of Rs. 100/-a month On a complaints being made that be was denied employment, an agricultural dispute relating to his non-employment was referred to the 2nd respondent Tribunal, under S. 22 (4) of the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, 1974 (Act 18/ 74 ). Ext. P3 is the tribunal's award declaring that the first respondent. "is entitled to get employment under the counter-petitioner and arrears of wages, if any, found due to him". THE "counter-petitioner" referred to in the award is the land owner petitioner herein. And the prayer in the O. P. is to quash ext. P3.

(2.) THE petitioner's case before the Tribunal was that the first respondent was not an agricultural worker as defined in the Act, but only an agent doing many things on his behalf as "karyastha". THE Tribunal dealt with this contention in the following terms: "the petitioner has no case that be was doing any agriculture operation by directly working on the land but that be was doing only works which are considered to be the other agricultural operations in relation to the other agricultural lands of the owner. THE counter petitioner has also admitted before the Deputy Labour Officer (the Conciliation Officer)that the petitioner was attending his personal property affairs (Ext. B6 ). It clearly goes to show that there is nothing wrong that an agricultural worker who does not work directly on the land can also claim himself to be a care taker of the property also since he is doing any other works in relation to the agricultural operations as laid down under the latter part of the definition of agricultural Worker given under S. 2 (f) of the Agricultural Workers Act, 1974. THE Counter Petitioner has admitted in his depositions that he was bis personal and domestic servant who he was sending to fetch persons for disposing bis coconuts to ascertain the market price of coconuts to know the dates of posting of the Land Tribunal cases of himself and his sisters etc. He being a practicing Advocate he could have deputed his Clerk for knowing the date of posting etc. of the cases. From this it goes without saying that the petitioner was doing the works such as those claimed to have been done by the petitioner in his statement as well as in his depositions. " And the main question is whether the above represents a proper understanding of the relevant provisions of the Act.

(3.) WHERE the owner of agricultural land is personally cultivating it, he is the "landowner" in relation to that land, under s. 2 (m) (i ). "personally cultivate", under clause (ii) of Explanation i to Sub-s, (m) means, cultivate either solely by one's own labour or with the help of members of the family or hired labourers, or both; alternatively, it means personally direct or supervise cultivation by such members or hired labourers, or both. Cultivation thus involves "labour" and "labourers". WHERE the owner, uses his own capacity to "labour", he cultivates the land himself. He can also get the help of hired labourers and personally "direct or supervise" their activities; such direction or supervision also makes him the cultivator of the land. There is thus an apparent distinction between labour or work carried on through hired labourers on the one hand, and direction or supervision on the other. Direction or supervision is the function of the employer or the owner of land, in the context of cultivation, and all other activities required to make up cultivation can be carried on through hired labourers. In this view, if the owner of land engages another to direct, oversee or supervise cultivation, instead of doing it himself, the proper way of describing that another is to call him an agent, and not a servant.