HAKIM SINGH Vs. J.C. MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by an employee of a contractor supplying certain packing materials to the J. C. Mills Ltd., owners of a well known industrial concern at Gwalior. It is under Articles 227 of the Constitution, praying that we should set aside the decision of the Industrial Court that the Petitioner cannot be deemed to be an employee under the non -applicant No. 1 -J. C. Mills Ltd., for the purpose of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act either under the general law of master and servant, or under the special provisions of the Act in Section 3(13)(a) read with Section 3(14)(e).

(2.) THE facts of the case are the following. The J. C. Mills Ltd., manufacture textile goods and send them out in bales. Among the packing materials required are a quantity of metal strips and rivets which apparently come in large reels and quantities; the strips have to be cut in proper length and width and the rivets fixed where they are joined. This last process seems to be done in the premises themselves. After the strips and rivets of the proper length, breadth and number are prepared, they are handed over to the packing department which uses for the packing of the bales which are then sent out. Mohanlal son of Ramautar opposite party No. 2 is the contractor who brings this kind of material, cuts it, and fixes it with rivets according to requirements of the packing department and ha ads them over. The Petitioner Hakimsingh is an employee of this contractor. In view of some confusion noted in the argument at the bar, we have to record clearly that the finding of fact of the tribunals including the Industrial Court is that -

(3.) IN spite of the rather heavy wording of these definitions, what emerges is by no means complicated. There must be an industrial undertaking owned by somebody, an individual or a company; some work which is ordinarily part of the undertaking must have been entrusted by the owner to a contractor; that contractor must be employing an employee; now that employee can by the combined operation of these definitions insist upon being treated as the employee of the owner himself. The obvious idea is that the owner of an industrial undertaking cannot evade the responsibilities towards his employees which are imposed by laws, by entrusting part or whole of the conduct of the undertaking to a contractor. Most often, the contractor will be a smaller man and his establishment may at times turn out to be too small for the operation of the labour laws. If an owner is enabled to evade his duties to the employees who work in his industry, by having a number of contractors, then the policy behind the labour laws can be frustrated. Therefore Clause 14 (e) and 13 (a) have the effect of fixing the responsibilities on the owner just as if he was directly employing the employee concerned.