T M ABDUL RAHIM AND CO MAHARAJA BEEDI FACTORY RENIPET Vs. SECRETARY NORTH ARCOT DT BEEDI WORKERS UNION VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari to set aside the award of the Industrial Tribunal in I. D. No. 16 of 1957.

(2.) THE petitioner-company manufactures and sells beedis. It resisted the claim of the Union, the first respondent, which represented the labourers, who did the manual work of rolling the beedis, for enhanced remuneration for their services. The labourers were paid Rs. 1-4-0 for every 1000 biddis they rolled. All the material was supplied by the company. They claimed enhanced remuneration at rs. 2-4-0 per 1000. The claim was referred as an industrial dispute under Section 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal. In the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the company (petitioner)contended among other things (I) that the labourers were not "workmen" as defined by Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act; that the dispute between the company and the beddi rollers was not an industrial dispute, and that therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to take up adjudication of the disputed claims of the beedi rollers; and (2) that in any event the company had not the financial capacity to pay any more to the beedi rollers, as its margin of profit out of the sale price of the beedis it manufactured was less than three annas per 1000 beedis. The Tribunal negatived both the contentions. The Tribunal awarded an increase of four annas and directed that the beedi rollers should be paid Rs. 1-8-0 for every 1000 beedis rolled by them. The validity of that award was challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the Tribunal was in error in negativing the two contentions mentioned above.

(3.) THE plea of the company, that the beedi rollers were not "workmen" as defined by Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, raised a jurisdictional issue, on the correct determination of which depended the further jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the dispute between the company and the Union as an industrial dispute. The real question at issue between the parties was, whether the beedi roller was a person "employed" within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act.