MADAN BEEDI DEPOT Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a partnership firm dealing in beedies. According to the petitioner, it does not manufacture beedies. It buys beedies from several persons, who under contracts entered with petitioner make and supply beedies to the petitioner; and the petitioner sells them to his customers. The business is a fairly large one. The petitioner buys and stocks beedi tobacco and leaves in sufficient quantities for getting beedies manufactured for its business. It has adopted two methods for this purpose. There are a number of persons who have taken out licenses under the Central Excise Act, 1944 for manufacture of beedies. Beedi tobacco and leaves are got by such persons, who are hereinafter referred to as the licensees, from the petitioner. The licensees distribute the tobacco and leaves to different persons, who take the goods to their respective homes and make beedies according to specification. The beedies are then supplied to the licensees, who pay for the same at a fixed rate. The licensees supply the beedies to the petitioner at the agreed rate. This is the first method. The second method to that the petitioner supplies beedi tobacco and leaves to different persons, who take the goods to their respective houses; they make beedies according to specification and supply them to the petitioner at a fixed rate. These persons are supplied with pass books; and the tobacco and the leaves given to them and the beedies they supply to the petitioner are all regularly entered in these books. The petitioner takes a security deposit of Rs. 15/- from each of these persons who are hereinafter referred to as the pass book holders.

(2.) Persons who make beedies under both the above methods claimed to be employees under the petitioner and demanded payment of bonus for the year 1965 under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The petitioner rejected the claim on the ground that neither of them were its employees. The State Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Calicut, who by its award, Ext. P6 dated 27-12-1969, upheld their claim. This writ petition has been filed to quash the said award, on the ground that, on the facts found by the Tribunal, there is no employer employee relationship between the petitioner and the aforesaid persons, and the award was, therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) There is no serious dispute regarding the manner in which the petitioner gets beedies manufactured for its business. The controversy is regarding the real nature of the two methods adopted by the petitioner for the above purpose as well as the legal character of the relationship between the petitioner and the persons who make beedies for it. A few more facts have also to be mentioned. The petitioner has no factory or place of its own for getting the beedies manufactured. The beedies are made in the houses of the persons who make them; and there is no direct supervision by the petitioner or its agents regarding the process of making. There is also no specified time for work. They can make the beedies during any part of the day according to their convenience. It is also not necessary that the particular persons who take the tobacco and the leaf must themselves do the work. As a matter of fact, the work is done not only by the very same persons who take the tobacco and the leaves for making beedies, but also by the members of their family who can do it. There is no case for the petitioner that the supply of the tobacco and the leaves to the licensees or to the pass book holders is by way of sale, nor that the petitioner buys the beedies from them. Admittedly, the beedies are made for the petitioner; and what it pays to the licensees and the pass book holders are the charges at the agreed rate for making the beedies. The beedies have to be made according to the specification. The petitioner is entitled to sort out and reject the defective ones.