H M KHATRI AND CO Vs. THEIR WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This industrial dispute was referred to me under S. 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, under No. A.J.K. 1060, dated 31 March, 1960, of the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Administration), Bombay.

(2.) This concern was established in 1949. It is a partnership firm with two partners. It manufactures brassiere of various types. For that purpose it engages daily-rated tailors and piece-rated tailors. It has also a cutter who along with one of the partners cuts cloth into different sizes. The cut pieces are then distributed among the tailors. Stitching charges for the different types of brassiere are different. Every one is paid his wages on Saturdays. The piece-rated tailors get according to the quantity and type of brassiere they stich. Ironing and packing is done by daily-rated helpers. In May 1959 the union sent a charter of demands to the firm and there was a settlement in the office of the conciliation officer. The question whether the piece-rated workers were "workmen" under the Act was agreed to be referred to the industrial tribunal. Sri Balooch for the company submitted that this question should be decided as a preliminary issue at it would determine whether this tribunal has or has not jurisdiction to try this case. Sri Narayan Shetye consented to the suggestion. Demand 1 is in the following terms : "Whether piece-rated persons employed are workmen within the meaning of the definition of 'workman' contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."

(3.) Sri Shetye urged that demand 1 used the phrase "piece-rated persons employed." The word "employed," he said, itself suggests that the piece-rated persons are the employees of the firm. He drew my attention to the definition of the word "workman" in the Act where it is stated : "workman means any person employed in any industry." From the use of the same word "employed" in the definition and in demand 1 Sri Shetye urged that these persons must be taken to be workmen. I do not think there is any special force in the use of the verb "employed." A man wants a house to be built. He employs a contractor. The contractor does not therefore become a "workman." To employ means to give work to. That itself does not make the person employed a "workman." We must look to the work that is done, the mode in which it is done, the control and supervision that the employer exercises over the person employed, the place where the work is done, the hours of the day when it is expected to be done and so on.