UNIVERSAL TYRES LTD Vs. K C SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is made clear that Writ Petition No. 8943 of 1978, has been filed by M/s. Jay Shree Tyres & Rubber Products, Naini, Allahabad and the present petition has been filed by M/s. Universal Tyres Limited. In both the writ petitions Dr. K.C. Srivastava is the respondent. Both the writ petitions have been directed against an award passed by the Labour Court, Allahabad, in proceedings under Section 6-H(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, initiated by Sri K.C. Srivastava.

(2.) It appears that M/ s. Universal Tyres Limited on January 1, 1974 had appointed Dr. K.C. Srivastava , a Medical Practitioner, as a consultant for the treatment of its employees in its factory on a specific monthly remuneration. M/s. Universal Tyres Limited was closed down and it gave its factory on a lease to Jay Shree Tyres and Rubber Products, Naini, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as Jay Shree). This Jay Shree stopped making monthly payment to Dr. K.C. Srivastava. Thereafter he involved the machinery under Section 6-H(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and made two applications in the Labour Court for the payment of a sum of Rs. 3,750/- as wages for the period from July 1, 1976 to October 1, 1977 and a sum of Rs. 1,250/- for the period October 1, 1977 to February, 1978. Both the petitioners in the connected writ petitions contested the applications on the ground inter alia, that Dr. K.C. Srivastava was a workman. This defence did not find favour with the Labour Court and by the impugned order the petitioners in the connected writ petition were directed to pay the aforementioned amounts to Dr. Srivastava.

(3.) The only point for determination in this writ petition is as to whether Dr. K.C. Srivastava was a workman within the meaning of the Act. His appointment letter is dated January 1, 1974. The letter discloses, "We are pleased to appoint you on 'retainership' basis for the treatment of our factory employees on the following terms and conditions." The first condition was that Dr. K.C. Srivastava was to be paid a sum of Rs. 250/- per month as consultation charges. The other condition was that Dr. K.C. Srivastava was to be paid a total retail cost of the medicines used by him for the employees on submission of the monthly bill. The third condition was that Dr. K.C. Srivastava was entitled to a visiting fee of Rs. 5/- and further that the employees of the factory were made responsible to pay for any special treatment, such as bone setting, which may entail X-ray, plastering or major operation, if and when referred to the District Hospital, Medical College or any specialists. The appointment letter ended like this, "You are requested to send your bill towards the monthly consultation charges and cost of medicines along with slips of individual employees sent to you for medical treatment through our factory. Your bill after scrutiny will be forwarded to our accounts department and the same will be immediately paid thereafter". It is thus clear that Dr. K.C. Srivastava was required to go to the factory premises for rendering medical aid or administering treatment to the employees of the petitioner. It is also clear that individual employees could not approach Dr. K.C. Srivastava directly. Before they could go, they were required to obtain slips from the factory. It is relevant to point out that the letter of appointment was also silent regarding the supervision, direction and control by M/s. Universal Tyres Limited over the work of Dr. K.C. Srivastava. It emerges, therefore, that there was no relationship of the employer and employees between the petitioners and the doctor.