LAWS(P&H)-1992-3-64

INDIAN SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT

Decided On March 06, 1992
INDIAN SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LTD. Appellant
V/S
LABOUR COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per averments in the writ petition, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter called "the respondent") was engaged by the petitioner-company as Labour Law Adviser on retainership basis at Rs. 125 per month in the year 1967 to look after its interests before the Labour Court and conciliation authorities set up under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called "the Act" ). On January 4, 1979, the respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner-company requesting for an increase in his emoluments to Rs. 500 per month and by way of justification, it was stated as under:

(2.) THE petitioner-company,, however, did not accede to the demand of the respondent and, vide communication dated May 3, 1979 (Annexure P-2 to the petition), he was informed that with effect from May 1, 1979, remuneration to him would be given on per case and not on monthly basis. The respondent thereupon moved an application (copy Annexure P-3 to the writ petition) before the Labour Court under Section 33-C (2) of the Act claiming certain amounts allegedly due to him. Vide ex-parte order (Annexure P-4 to the writ petition), the Labour Court allowed the application and ordered the payment of a sum of Rs. 6,220. The petitioner thereafter moved an application before the Labour Court for setting aside the ex-parte award but while the matter was yet pending, approached this court by way of the present writ petition impugning the order, Annexure P-4. At the time of motion hearing, stay of operation of the impugned order was granted which is in operation till today.

(3.) THE stand of the petitioner in the writ petition was that there was no relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondent as he was a self-employed person rendering professional services to a number of organisations and, as such, did not fall in the category of a workman as defined in Section 2 (s) of the Act. It was also averred that the payments being made to the respondent were in the nature of a retainership and not in the nature of salary. In the written statement filed by the respondent, the averments made by the petitioner were denied and it was pleaded that the respondent was employed on a part-time basis for a remuneration of Rs. 125 per month which necessitated his visit to the factory at Shahbad every Saturday afternoon for supervising the maintenance of provident fund account registers and other works relating to the labour employed by the petitioner. Reliance has been placed by the respondent on the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court, vide order Anneuxre P