Case: Maharashtra Sugar Mills Limited Vs. State of Bombay &amp; Others

muster labour and contract labour employed by the Mills."The appeal Court relied upon the agreement signed by the contractor who recruited harvesting labour. Though there was no such contract or agreement between the contractors and non harvesting contract labour, the High Court found on evidence that the position of non-harvesting labour was more or less the same as that of harvesting labour. The final conclusion of the appeal Court on this point is in these words:"Therefore, on a review of this evidence it is difficult to hold that the Industrial Tribunal was in error or was not justified in coming to the conclusion that contract labour were employees of the company within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act . .. It was open to the Industrial Court to review all the evidence and all the circumstances and what we have to decide is whether on such a review the Tribunal was not justified in drawing the conclusion that it did. We really go further and we are of the opinion that even it we were ourselves considering this evidence as a Court of first instance we would have come to the same conclusion."6. Mr. Chatterjee for the appellants contended that there was no material on the record from which this conclusion of the appeal Court could be supported. He urged that there was no relationship, contractual or otherwise, of any kind between the company and the seasonal labour employed by the contractors who had entered into agreements with the company for carrying out certain operations of a seasonal kind on the companys farms, that the contractors used to collect families and they used to do work along with them collectively and not singly, that the bills were made in the name of the contractors and that it was not known on what basis the remuneration was to be calculated or distributed, that no muster roll was kept by the company in respect of this contract labour and that there is no way in which the company can identify the persons comprised in these family groups, whose number was fluctuating. It was suggested that the true nature of the relationship of these persons with the contractor was that of partners or of sub-contractors and not of employer and employee and that a lump sum payment was made according to the result of the operations conducted by them on acreage basis, the company not knowing what happened to the money after it was handed over to the contractors.7. We are of the opinion that none of these contentions has force in view of the terms of Ex. I which is a specimen agreement regarding, the operations of sugar cane cutting and transport,, entered into by, the company with the so-called contractors. cls. 4, 12, 13 and 16 of this agreement tell a different tale. These Clauses are in these terms:"(4) I am to engage, for the purpose of carrying out works according to your instructions and for supervision, responsible servants such as you may approve of, at my cost. And I am not personally to leave the work and go away personally elsewhere without your permission.(12) I am to distribute wages of the coolies engaged by me and that in your presence, if you do the same, I have no objection. I am not to give occasion for complaint in this respect.(13) If your officers, distribute wages to the coolies engaged by me, I have no objection. I am not to give occasion for complaint in this respect.(16) After I have carried out to your satisfaction all pieces of work undertaken hereby, you are to refund the deposit amount in my name either to me or directly to my workers. Neither myself nor the coolies or cart man leaving before the end of the season, without taking previous permission from you in writing will be entitled to the proportionate refund of their deposit."It cannot be seriously disputed that the contractors engaged by the company were under the responsibility of employing responsible servants (as the company may approve of) for carrying on the operation entrusted to them and that these servants or coolies were to be paid wages by the contractor, and if thought necessary by the company directly. The modus operandi of the company with the contractors was that each contractor was asked how much men he could supply. Usually a contractor agreed to supply between 5 to 25 people and according to the capacity, for work of this number he was entrusted with the operations on the farm. The contract labour got the same amenities from the company as the muster roll labour. They got grains at concession rates from grain shops, they were supplied housing material free, they also got concessions with regard to green fodder, sugar cane, green crops; Cloth was also distributed to labour of this type. In the face of this material, it is not possible to uphold the contention raised by Mr. Chatterjee. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the appeal Court was in error in holding that the persons employed by the contractor were his employees within the definition of that expression given in the Act.8. It was urged by Mr. Chatterjee that in the case of non-harvesting labour no written contract had been put in, and it was not known on what terms non-harvesting contract labour was being employed by the contractor. The High Court drew the inference and in our opinion, legitimately, from the evidence that the position of the non-harvesting contract labour was identical with harvesting contract labour. That labour was also recruited in the same manner through the instrumentality of the contractors. It appears to us that the only difference between muster roll labour and contract labour employed by the company in 1947-48 was that in case of the former there was a direct contract between the company while in the case of the latter the relationship was brought about through the intervention or interposition of a contractor.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. We are of the opinion that none of these contentions has force in view of the terms of Ex. I which is a specimen agreement regarding, the operations of sugar cane cutting and transport,, entered into by, the company with thecontractors. cls. 4, 12, 13 and 16 of this agreement tell a differentcannot be seriously disputed that the contractors engaged by the company were under the responsibility of employing responsible servants (as the company may approve of) for carrying on the operation entrusted to them and that these servants or coolies were to be paid wages by the contractor, and if thought necessary by the company directly. The modus operandi of the company with the contractors was that each contractor was asked how much men he could supply. Usually a contractor agreed to supply between 5 to 25 people and according to the capacity, for work of this number he was entrusted with the operations on the farm. The contract labour got the same amenities from the company as the muster roll labour. They got grains at concession rates from grain shops, they were supplied housing material free, they also got concessions with regard to green fodder, sugar cane, green crops; Cloth was also distributed to labour of this type. In the face of this material, it is not possible to uphold the contention raised by Mr. Chatterjee. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the appeal Court was in error in holding that the persons employed by the contractor were his employees within the definition of that expression given in theHigh Court drew the inference and in our opinion, legitimately, from the evidence that the position of thecontract labour was identical with harvesting contract labour. That labour was also recruited in the same manner through the instrumentality of the contractors. It appears to us that the only difference between muster roll labour and contract labour employed by the company inwas that in case of the former there was a direct contract between the company while in the case of the latter the relationship was brought about through the intervention or interposition of a contractor.