RAMAKRISHNA RAMNATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question which arises for decision in petition filed by the employer is whether in a proceeding under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Labour Court can go into the question whether the applicant before it is a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act.

(2.) The petitioner admittedly owns a bidi factory at Kamptee. The then Government of Bombay fixed the minimum wages payable by the employers in the bidi making industry to the employees employed in that industry by a notification issued under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, on June 11, 1958. Consequent on the issuance of this notification, the petitioner by notice dated June 24, 1958 declared its intention to tempararily close down the factory purporting to act in the exercise of its powers under Clause 11 of the Standing Orders. The petitioner has reproduced the material part of this notice in the petition, which is as follows : "We hereby therefore further wish to inform that the above-said closure of the Bidi making business of the Firm will continue as long as the Notification dated 11-6-1958 continues in force and is not withdrawn." Admittedly the factory of the petitioner was closed temporarily from July 1, 1958 till it was re-opened on August 10, 1958. According to the petitioner all the employees were taken back on work including the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 applied to the Labour Court at Nagpur under Section 33-C (2) of the Act alleging that she was in the employment of the petitioner as a bidi binder and her average daily earning was Rs. 1.69. She claimed that she was entitled to the "benefit of Rs. 169 on account of retrenchment and one month's notice pay in lieu of one month's notice." She has alleged in her application that the factory was closed as from July 1, 1958, as a result of which she and other workers employed therein were retrenched and that she had put in seven years of continuous service. She claimed that the benefit which she was claiming was capable of being computed in terms of money and she, therefore, prayed that the said benefit may bo computed in terms of money and the amount payable to her should be determined. It is not in dispute that several employees of the petitioner have also made similar applications.

(3.) The petitioner filed a consolidated printed written statement in which the claim of the respondent No. 3 was denied. We are not concerned with the several grounds on which the claim of the respondent No. 3 was contested by the petitioner. We, therefore, refer only to those parts of the written statement which are relied upon at this stage before us. In paragraph 1 of the written statement, the petitioner denied that the respondent No. 3 was employed as a bidi binder and that it was alleged that she was binding bidis on contract basis as a piece-rated worker and that there was no relationship of master and servant between the parties. In para. 5 of the written statement, it was alleged that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction under Section 33-C of the Act to entertain the application of the respondent No. 3 as there was a serious dispute between the parties as to whether there was any retrenchment at all and there was also a dispute regarding the amount of compensation claimable by the respondent No. 3, who hereinafter is referred to as the 'employee'. It is alleged that in the absence of any such ascertained amount, neither the Government nor the Labour Court has any jurisdiction to make any direction regarding the payment of any compensation under Section 33-C of the Act. In paragraph 20 the petitioner had averred that the employee was not a worker within the definition of Section 2 (1) of the Factories Act, 1948, and that she was binding bidis on contract basis as a piece rated worker and there was no relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the employee,