DESAI BROTHERS Vs. LAKSHMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises in these appeals is can a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, while entertaining an application under Sec. 33-C (2) go into the question whether the petitioner is a workman or not. The Labour Court held that the petitioners, who have filed objections under Section 33 C (2) of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 arc workmen even if the objection raised by the Management is taken to be true. Questioning the same, the Management has filed several writ petitions and the learned Single Judge affirmed the view taken by the Labour Court, ihe learned Single Judge has also held that the Beedi manufacturers ultimately paid wages to the workmen through the agency of Thakedar and in tiiat factual situation the workmen should be regarded as the workmen of the Beedi Manufacturers. It is that finding that is seriously challenged in these writ appeals by the Management.

(2.) For a proper appreciation of the point urged, we may state few more facts. The respondents in the writ petitions, claiming to be the workers, filed applications under Section 33-C (2) of the Act claiming compensation and notice pay under Section 25-FF of the Act. They claimed that they were workmen of Messrs. Desai Brothers, Hyderabad. The application? were resisted by the Management on the ground that the applicants are not the employees of Messrs. Desai Brothers and therefore their applications under Section 33-C (2) of the Act are not at all maintainable. In other words, a preliminary objection was raised that the applicants were not their workmen. In support of their stand, the Management stated that according to the practice, the Company will supply Beedi leaves, tobacco to Thakedar (contractor) and he wil 1 supply the finished product. The Company at the relevant time paid Rs. 4.90 to the Thakedar for every 1000 beedies supplied by the Thakedar and the company is not at all connected as to what processes the Thakedar apply in rolling beedies, whom he appoints etc.

(3.) The Labour Court held that even if 'he stand taken by the Management is to be accepted and even according to M.W. 1, the Thakedars were paid certain amounts for piece rate wages to the labourers engaged by them, besides commission payable to Thakedars, "this is a case similar to D.M. Sahib & Sons vs. Union of U.B. Workers. Hence even assuming that the version of the respondent is true, still Thakedur cannot be treated as the principal employer of the petitioners as per the provisions of Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966."