Case: Shibu Metal Works Vs. Their Workmen

This appeal is brought from the award of the industrial tribunal, Punjab, Patiala, dated 15 April, 1963, in reference No. 5 of 1962, published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Part I), dated 3 May, 1963The appellant is a factory under the name and style of Shibu Metal Works Jagadhari, being a partnership concern registered under the Partnership Act and carrying on the business of manufacture of circle sheets and brass utensils The appellant has been employing about 65 to 70 workmen who were shown on the. Among other sections of the factory the appellant has three section, viz., chhilai, lathe and press where it adopted the practice of getting its work done through contractors On 30 October, 1957 there was a settlement between the workmen and the management with regard to several matters. The settlement was arrived at before the conciliation officer and one of the terms of the settlement was an undertaking by the workmen not to raise any dispute covered or not covered by the settlement for five years, i.e., from 1 April, 1957 till 31 March, 1962, except in cases of victimization. The secretary, Metal Mazdoor Sabha served a demand notice on 3 July, 1962 upon the appellant with regard to many mattersOn 7 December, 1962 the Punjab Government referred the following three demands out of the demand notice for adjudication to the industrial tribunal, Punjab ate notification No."(1) Whether the action of the management in not providing full work to Hari Ram during the year 1962 and thereby depriving him of his full wages is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief/exact compensation he is entitled ?(2) Whether the contract system of talking work of the permanent nature in the following sections/departments of the concern by the management from the contract labour should be abolished :(1) chhilai,(3) press ?(3) Whether the workmen are entitled to the grant of casual leave with wages in a year ? If so, how much in a year and with what details ?"A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the appellant before the industrial tribunal that this reference was bad in law because the settlement dated 30 October, 1957 was extended for another five years by the second agreement dated 21 February, 1962 by which the workmen undertook not to raise any dispute for five years except in a case of victimization. The preliminary objection was rejected by the industrial tribunal on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the workmen who negotiated with the management for extending the agreement had the authority of the other workmen of the establishment as required by rule 58 (2)(b) of the industrial disputes (Punjab) Rules. On the merits of the reference the industrial tribunal decided item 1 regarding Hari Rams victimization in favour of the management With regard to the other two items, viz., abolition of contract labour and the grant of casual leave, the industrial tribunal held that the management should abolish the contract labour system within a period of three months from the date the award came into operation and that management should grant six days casual leave with wages in a year to the workmen

Court's reasoning:
The industrial tribunal accordingly rejected the preliminary objection that the reference was bad in law because of previous agreement. The finding of the industrial tribunal on this point is essentially a question of fact and it is not open to the appellant to challenge this finding in appeahe tribunal has examined the evidence adduced by the parties on this point and recorded the finding that the work in all three section was of a permanent nature and not intermittent or temporary and that the system of contract labour should be abolished. In view of this finding of the industrial tribunal we are of the opinion that there was no justification for the management to employ contract labour for the sections of chhilai lathe and pressIn the present case, the industrial tribunal has found that contract labour was being employed for work which was of a permanent nature and it was part of the manufacturing process of the goods manufactured in the factory. The matter would have been different if the work had been of intermittent or temporary nature or so little in extent that it would not be possible to employ whole time workmen for the purpose. In these circumstances, we see no reason for interfering with the award of the tribunal on this point. On behalf of the appellant the findings of the tribunal on the other issues were not challenged in this appeal.