R SREEDHARAN Vs. M V A DIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction for vending toddy from shop No. 12 of Pullikada, Quilon for the three successive years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63. The period for which the petitioner purchased the right to vend toddy at the last of these occasions or the petitioner's licence, as it is called expired on 1-4-1963; and at the auction for the year 1963-64 the petitioner was not the successful bidder. Respondents 2 to 9 were toddy tappers employed for the purpose of collecting toddy from the trees comprised in the petitioner's auction, and were getting wages at 18nps. per bottle of toddy. They filed claim petitions 783 to 789 and 793 of 1963 before the Labour Court Quilon, claiming retrenchment compensation as well as notice pay, on the ground that they had been in continuous service for three years under the petitioner, and had been retrenched from service. Ext. P-1 is a copy of the claim petition No. 783 of 1963; Ext. P-2 is a copy of the objection filed by the petitioner thereto; and Ext. P-3 is copy of the order of the Labour Court on the said petition. The Labour Court adjudged that the claimants were entitled to retrenchment compensation but not to notice pay. This order of the Labour Court is sought to be quashed in this O. P.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel raised three points:

(3.) In addition to the above three points, the petitioner's counsel attempted to argue that the claimants respondents were not "workmen" within the meaning of the Act, and as expounded by the judicial decisions, as the petitioner had no control in regard to the manner and the method of their doing their work. As this point was not raised before the Labour Court, and as no foundation has been laid for it in the pleadings, and as the question involves investigation of facts, I must decline to pronounce upon this aspect of the question.