NARAYAN HARI KUMBHARE Vs. P K PORWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order of the Authority constituted under the Minimum Wages Act holding that it has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the application made by certain persons claiming to be the employees of the respondent No. 1, who is a Bidi Manufacturer.

(2.) SEVERAL applications were filed before the authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, at Gondia, claiming certain amounts from respondent No. 1. At page 13 of the paper book is one specimen of such application. In their application the claimants averred that they have been employees in the establishment of respondent No. 1, that is, P. K. Porwal, Bidi manufacturer, as bidi rollers. To their application they impleaded one Zibal Tukaram Meshram as opponent No. 2, This Zibal is the second respondent in this petition. They stated that Zibal, the respondent No. 2, is a person who supervises the work of the establishment of bidi manufacturer. They claimed that the opposite party had rejected out of the bidis rolled by them to the extent of 250 to 300 bidis per thousand, for which no wages were paid, during the period for which the claim was made, that is, from 5-11-1965 to 4-5-1966. It was alleged that each of the applicants on an average has not been paid for 45000 rejected bidies during the above period. The bidies were rejected on the ground that they were sub-standard. The petitioners also claimed that they have not been paid wages because of the cut effected called "patta katni" and "tobacco katni" on account of the defect in tendu leaves and deficiency in the tobacco contents of the bidies. On this account also they put up a claim. Rs. 990/-were claimed on account of 'chhat' or rejection and Rs. 396a- were claimed as illegally deducted amount on account of Patta Katni and Tobacco Katni.

(3.) THE first respondent, that is, the bidi manufacturer filed a detailed written statement in answer to the claim. In paragraph No. 1 of the written statement, the respondent No. 1 denied that the applicants were ever employed in the establishment of the bidi manufacturer. He also denied that Zibal was employed to supervise the work in the establishment. His specific case was that opponent No. 1, that is, P. K. Porwal, Bidi Manufacturer, was not the employer of the applicants within the meaning of Section 2 (E) of the Minimum Wages Act This position was reiterated in paragraph No. 4 of the written statement saying that since opponent No. 1 had no concern or dealing with any of the applicants, there is no question of rejection of bidies, nor making any direction for payment to them. Opponent No. 1 stated that applicants did not supply any bidi to the non-applicant No. 1. In paragraph 11, which is styled as a specific plea, the non-applicant No. 1 raised another contention, namely, that Inasmuch as the applicants were working on Gharkhata basis, the application was untenable because bidi making on Gharkhata basis is not a scheduled Industry within the meaning of Minimum Wages Act. In para 13 of the written statement opponent No, 1 pleaded that Zibal was an independent contractor of opponent No. 1, that he had executed an agreement in favour of opponent No. 1 and that it was he who was supplying rolled bidies to opponent No. 1, according to the terms and conditions laid down in the contract. He also alleged that Zibal is not the employee of opponent No. 1, and hence persons like the applicants, who are bidi rollers of the contractor, cannot become employees of the opponent No. 1, in fact, or in law. It is categorically stated in paragraph 13 that the relationship of "employer" and "employee" never existed between the contractor, that is Zibal, and the applicants and much less there could be any question of the applicants being employees of opponent No. 1. In paragraph 16 of his written statement, the opponent No. 1 has stated as follows: