C NARAYANA PILLAI Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ALLEPPY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. It arises out of an award dated 19-8-1957 and passed by the 1st respondent, the Industrial Tribunal, Alleppey, in I.D. 44 of 1956. The award concerns the alleged wrongful dismissal of P. Thankappan Pillai, peon cum distributor attached to the Petitioner establishment, The Indian Express Office (Branch) Trivandrum, represented by Mr. C. Narayana Pillai. Thankappan Pillai was a member of the 2nd respondent Union, the Newspaper Agents and Distributors Association, Trivandrum and so the initiative had been taken by them in getting the dispute referred for adjudication by the Tribunal. By the award filed as Ext. P dated 19-8-1957 and published in the Kerala Gazette dated 3rd September 1957, the Tribunal found that the dismissal of Thankappan Pillai was not justified and granted him relief by way of compensation in lump sum Rs. 500 and also the admitted arrears of pay due to him amounting to of Rs. 23-12 As. Hence this petition and the prayer is for grant of certiorari or other writ quashing Ext. P award.

(2.) Mr. Kalathil Velayudhan Nair appearing for the Petitioner pressed before me three of the points taken before the Tribunal below and overruled by it, as follows:-

(3.) Taking up the first point as to defect of party. Learned counsel said that the determination as to who was the employer must turn on who paid the salary and so the Head Office at Madras who met the salary bill of Thankappan Pillai must alone be taken to be the employer and therefore the proper party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. And he referred to the definition of workman in S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act indicating employment for hire and reward and the absence of any clue in the definition of employer in S.(2)(g) of the Act, except in the case of the Government Central or State and local authorities. But this argument ignores the ordinary rule of master and servant and further prefers the ultimate to the proximate. The initial appointment of Thankappan Pillai was made by Mr. C. Narayana Pillai as manager of the Branch Office at Trivandrum though subject to a formal confirmation by the Head Office. Thankappan Pillai looked to the Branch Office alone for his salary. The direction and control as regards the day-to-day work of Thankappan Pillai were again in the hands of Mr. C. Narayana Pillai. If so, there is nothing wrong in holding the Branch Office to be the employer and making them sole party herein. As held in D.C.Works Ltd. v. State of Sourashtra, AIR 1957 S.C. 264, 268: