PARSHURAM POTTERY WORKS, DHRANGADHRA Vs. ITS WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following dispute is referred for a adjudication to this tribunal : - (1) The following workers should be paid Rs. 48 -6 -0 as monthly salary from February 1955 without prejudice to the grades already demanded for them : (1) Sri Videshi Hublal. (2) Sri Karim Kalu. (3) Abdul Karim Pirmohmed. (4) Sri Hetumiya Gulofmiya. (2) Workers Sri Hari Mitha should be paid wages of Rs. 2 -15 -3 per day from the date from when he is giving production equivalent to that of those of other workers of his own category. (3) Workers working in the packing department should be paid back one anna wage cut per day from their wages since it is implemented. (4) The contract of loading and unloading should be stopped and the workers employed for the purpose by the contractor should be considered to be the factory workers for all the purposes in all respects from 1 January 1956. (5) The names, numbers, rates of wages, departments in which they work, the jobs they handle together with their distinct designation and the wages they get every month should all be clearly mentioned in the attendance passes should be allowed to be retained by the workers with them for their future reference. (6) A pair of half -shirts and half -pants should be given to the workers working in the slip house, tunnel kiln and moulding every year and a yard of cloth every month to those working in the slip house. (7) Workers working on trolley loading and unloading should all be given whole boots and leather hand -gloves while working for the protection of their legs and hands. (8) Taking work of the following jobs by contract system should be abolished and the same should be conducted by the company's own labour : - (1) filter press cloth washing; (2) coal supply to boiler, (3) cinders removing; (4) broken earthenware sump clearing; (5) handle moulding mixture supply from slip house; (6) gravels disintegrating, etc. (9) A waterman should be permanently posted in the drinking -water room. (10) A separate urinal and bath -room should be provided for female workers with adequate facility. (11) At least three bath -rooms should be provided for the male workers with adequate water facility. (12) Bachu Miyabhai who is doing the work of checking cups and saucers is given an attendance card in which is written Rs. 2 -3 -0 for 21 bundles which is not right and hence the right designation as per demand 5 above should be mentioned. Demand 1. * * * [Demand granted.] Demand 2. * * * [This was dropped by the union at the hearing.] Demand 3. * * * [This was rejected.] 8. Demand 4. - This demand is for abolishing of the contract of loading and unloading, for considering the workers employed for this purpose by the contractor as employees of the company from 1 January 1956. There is no dispute that the work of loading and unloading is being taken from the very beginning through a contractor. One Juma Alarakha is given this contract. It appears from the evidence of the supervisor and of the manager that the contractor's men unload the wagons at the railway siding near the factory and bring the raw materials, the coal and other articles to the factory. It is even stated that the articles unloaded from the wagons are being taken by these workmen to the departments where they are required. There is also no dispute that the contractor's men take the finished goods from the factory to the railway siding and load them on the wagons. The contractor is being paid at a fixed rate, and he is not under any obligation to pay his workmen wages previously agreed to between him and the company. It appears therefore that the contractor is free to employ any number of persons he likes and at whatever wages he chooses to pay. There is no agreement between the company and the contractor to pay specific wages to the workmen employed by the contractor. There is therefore no privity of contract between the company and the workmen employed by the contractor. It is stated on behalf of the company that no muster roll is being maintained by the company relating to the workmen employed by the contractor. The company was therefore not in a position to furnish information regarding the number of workmen employed by the contractor for this work. The company was also unable to state as to what wages were being paid to the workmen employed by the contractor. But it was stated by one witness examined by the union that the workmen employed by the contractor are being paid wages which are lower than the than the minimum wages paid to the workmen employed in the factory. It would therefore appear that the contract is not simply for loading and unloading the wagons at the railway siding near the factory, but it is also for transporting the articles unloaded at the railway siding to the different departments of the factory, and also for removing the finished goods from the factory to the railway siding for loading them on the wagons. I have stated these facts because on these facts it will have to be considered whether the work done by the workmen employed by the contractor for loading and unloading can be considered to be ordinarily a part of the industry within the meaning of the definition of 'employer' in Clause (g) of S. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by Saurashtra Amendment Act 28 of 1955.

(2.) THE preliminary objection was urged on behalf of the company that it was not open to the union to raise this demand on behalf of the workmen employed by the contractor, as these workmen were not the members of the union, and also because they were not the workmen of the company within the meaning of the definition of 'workmen' in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But after the decision of the Supreme Court 14 F.J.R. 41, it is well settled that an industrial disputes can be raised about persons who are not strictly workmen of the employer as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to that decision, an industrial disputes can be raised about any person provided the workmen who have raised the dispute have direct or substantial interest in the dispute. Even, if therefore, it be assumed that the workmen employed by the contractor are not the workmen of the company as defined in the Act, the workmen who have raised the dispute are interested in raising the dispute about the abolishing of the contract system inasmuch as all the workmen employed in the factory have a vital interest in the question as to whether the contract system should be allowed to continue in any department if by continuing such system the employer is allowed to resort to unfair labour practices, or is allowed to pay wages below the minimum wages payable in the factory. It can hardly be said that the workmen as a class would not be interested in seeing that the workmen employed for some work which has intimate connexion with the work of the factory are paid wages so that there may not be lowering of wages in the industry by permitting labour to be employed for alleged and similar works at lower wages. Even therefore assuming that the workmen employed by the contractor for this work are not the workmen of the company as defined in the Act, the workmen who have raised this dispute being admittedly the workmen of the company have a right to raise it, because, as I have stated, they are closely interested in the question about the continuation or otherwise of the contract system for loading and unloading.

(3.) BUT it was urged on behalf of the company that the work of loading and unloading of wagons should not be considered to be ordinarily part of the industry. It was urged that the industry is of manufacture of earthenware articles, and it can hardly be said that the work of loading and unloading of wagons at the railway siding would be ordinarily part of the work of manufacture of earthenware articles. It is true that no industry would be able to function without raw materials or without marketing its produce. If the contract given by the company would have been simply for loading and unloading wagons at the railway station or at the railway siding, and if it had not been the part of the contract to bring the raw materials from the railway siding to the factory premises, it can possibly be urged that the work of loading and unloading of wagons either at the railway siding or at the railway station would not be ordinarily part of the undertaking, which in this case is that of manufacturing earthenware articles. But in this case there is evidence to show that the workmen not merely unload the wagons at the railway siding, but they bring the unload articles to the different departments of the factory and stack them wherever they are required for the manufacturing processes. Similarly, if merely selling agents had been appointed, or if as part of the contract of sale articles had been removed from the factory by the purchaser or by the selling agents, that work would not ordinarily be part of the industry. But here the men employed by the contractor remove the finished articles from the factory to the railway siding and then load them on the wagons. Now this operation is a necessary operation for running the industry, because without marketing the finished goods, no industry can function. On the particular facts of this case, therefore, the work of loading and unloading given to the contractor was considered in my order, dated 9 May 1958, to be prima facie the work which is ordinarily part of the industry. Consequently the company was directed to supply certain information relating to the nature and volume of this work.