KANDIVLI METAL WORKS Vs. THEIR WORKMEN EXCLUDING CLERKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under S. 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (XIV of 1947), by the Government of Bombay for adjudication of a dispute between the Kandivali Metal Works and the workmen employed under it (excluding the clerks), over the following demand by the latter :-

(2.) The union states that the company used to get the fitting and spinning work done from the beginning through the contractors, Ranganath, Kanthaswamy Naiker and Shankar Narayan Dhuri. Later, in 1949, polishing work was entrusted to a contractor Sri Ganpat Shelar. A year later, washing work also was given to a contractor named Ramachandra Zungre. By 1954 the fitting work increased considerably so that another contractor Sri Narayandas was also entrusted with this work along with the former contractors. Recently the company started manufacturing stainless steel utensils, and the work of spinning, rolling and cutting is being done through a contractor Sri Bhau. According to the union, the contractors workers are recruited by the company's consent, they work under its instructions, their names are in the company's muster roll, and their work is recorded by its time-keeper, their leave is sanctioned by its officer, and it supplies all the machinery and tools and their material to their workers. These workers for their payment sign not only the contractors' book, but also the company's, and the spinning workers are paid directly by the company. The work is given through the contractor, with the object of avoiding the application of the industrial laws, and thus escaping the burden their application would entail. Most of these workers, it is said, are highly skilled and skilled, who should be paid the wages fixed under various awards for such class of workers. They have been paid low wages and unfairly denied all the benefits; due to them under the law by the company through this device of employing them through a contractor; hence they demand abolition of the contract system, and giving them direct employment with retrospective effect from 1 May, 1956, and point to point adjustment. The union has also in its statement of claim referred to the Labour Enquiry Committee's Report, and various decisions, and given extracts from them which I shall mention and discuss later.

(3.) The company in its written statement objects that the reference is not competent as the workers are not its employees, and cannot raise a dispute, and also that the demand for abolition of the contract labour infringes the fundamental right of the employer under the Constitution to carry on business as it chooses, and in the manner it thinks fit and proper. It denies the averments of the union regarding the intervention of the contractor being for any ulterior motive and the workers being virtually under its direct control. The kind of work entrusted to the contractor, it says, is incidental, and has been done through the contractors in the industry ever since it started. The contractors engaged by the company are experts in their various jobs, which they alone are capable of properly executing, and training the workmen for it. The contract system so long prevalent in the industry cannot, without sufficient reasons, be now abolished because the union demands it. Four contractors out of those mentioned by the union have been doing the work of the company since 1949. Sri Bhau Krishna was engaged as contractor after the company started manufacturing stainless steel goods. The company had to give a contract to him because it could not manage the work itself, and found that after giving of this contract, the production increased twofold, and the quality of goods also improved. It further says that the union cannot say that in fact all are the direct employees of the company, and the contractors are there merely in name, and at the same time demand abolition of the contract system. The company also denies the union's statement that the workers employed through the contractor were unaware of the fact, and realized only after the union was formed there. They were not the company's employees, and it says that they were directly under the control of the contractor and it was not possible for them to believe that they were not employed through him.