RAJARAM ROKDE AND BROTHERS Vs. SHRIRAM CHINTAMAN WARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions relate to Messrs. Rajaram Rokade and Brothers Factory engaged in manufacture of picture and photo frames in the City of Nagpur. As the evidence in these cases, so far as it relates to the main question of law is common, these two writ petitions were heard together and so far as the common question of law is concerned the same is being disposed of by this common judgment. So far as the merits of the award in Special Civil Application No, 447 of 1973 are concerned, the same will be dealt with separately. In these cases also the main contention which was raised on behalf of the petitioners by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri V. R. Manohar again relates to the question as to whether the carpenters and the polishmen engaged in this factory are 'employees' and 'workmen' within the meaning of the said expression as defined in the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 or the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Shri Manohar, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that having regard to the nature of the work which these persons are required to do the fact that they bring their own tools to do the work, that they are being paid at piece-rate basis and they are at liberty to come and go whenever they want, coupled with the fact that there is variation in the output and the payment of wages and no minimum has been prescribed, the learned Member of the Industrial Tribunal committed an error in holding that they are either employees' or "workmen" within the meaning of the aforesaid enactment. It is not possible for us to accept these contentions.

(2.) As to what is the real test for deciding such a questi on has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Silver Jubilee Tailoring House V/s. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments, 1974 AIR(SC) 37. After making a reference to the earlier decision in Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. V/s. State of Saurashtra, 1957 AIR(SC) 264 in paragraph 11, the Supreme Court observed:

(3.) Then the Supreme Court has made a reference to all its earlier decisions and observed in paragraph 27 as under: