SILVER JUBILEE TAILORING HOUSE AND OTHERS Vs. PRESIDENT, HYDERABAD TAILORING WORKERS UNION AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Chief Inspector of Establishments, Andhra Pradesh, the 2nd respondent, dated 23-5-1966.

(2.) The relevant facts are: On a claim before the authority under Sec. 37-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) shops and Establishments Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", read with Sec. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, in case No. 181 of 1963 a doubt was felt as to whether the Act is applicable to the Silver Jubilee Tailoring Firm, Abid Road, Hyderabad and the authority therefore felt that the matter should be decided by the Government as is visualised in Sec. 49 of the Act. Reference therefore was made to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to whom the powers under Sec. 49 of the Act were delegated by the Government. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour enquired into the matter, heard the parties and had reserved the judgment. Before he could deliver the judgment, the powers under Sec. 49 were delegated to the Chief Inspector of Establishments of Andhra Pradesh by G. O. Ms. No. 104 dated 28-1-1966. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, who had ceased to possess then delegated power, transferred the case to the Chief Inspector of Establishments. The Chief Inspector heard the parties and held that the Act applies to the Tailoring Firm, that the relationship of employer and employee exists between the applicants and the management of the Tailoring establishment, and therefore the applicants come within the definition of the term 'person employed' in Sec. 2(14) of the Act. It is this order that is now impugned in this writ petition.

(3.) The principal contention of Sri C. Obulapathi Chowdary, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that in view of the evidence that the tailors come to the premises of the firm whenever they like and leave the premises whenever they choose, it cannot be said that there is any control over these tailors. The relationship of employer and employee therefore does not exist and the provisions of the Act ought not to have been applied to the tailoring firm.