M/S. Kirloskar Oil Engines versus Hanmant Laxman Bibawe

¶1

514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963)

¶2

1~6!

¶3

Jul131.

¶4

M/S. KIRLOSKAR OIL ENGINES

¶5

v.

¶6

HANMANT LAXMAN BIBAWE

¶7

'(P. B. GAGENDRAGADKAR,. K. C. DAS GUPTA and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.)

¶8

lndu•trial Dupute-Master and servant-Workman concerned in dispute-Police 8Cheme for providing u:atchman at req7lest-Who is employer~IndUBtrial DIBputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1941), s. 33A._ . .

¶9

The respondent was engaged by 1he appellant as a watchman under a scheme framed by the Police Department. His services were discharged pending an in_dustrial dispute between the appellant and its workmen. The respondent complained to the Industrial Tribunal under s.1 33A of the Industrial Disputes . Act. . The Tribunal accepted the application. _The appeJlant· contended that the respondent was not its employee. The scheme provides that private persons requiring the services of watchmen may apply to the District Superintendent of Police who supplies a watchman if one suitable is available under the scheme. The amount towards pay Is recovered in advance .each month -by the District Superintendent of Police and credited to the watchman's fund. After deducting Rs. 250 _towards the uniform supp· lied, the rest is paid by the police Department to th_e, watchman. The Department requfres the persons to whom the watchman is supplied. to give a fortnight's notice if it is desired· to dispense with the services of the watchman. The watchmen arc mustered at the Police Station and their work supervised by the Police night patrol, They are under the ' disciplinary control of the District Superintendent of Police.

¶10

. Held, that the decision of the question whether a person is the employee of another or not has to depend on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. The test as to who is entitled to tell the employee the way in which he is to do the work on which he Is engaged though in a given case satisfactory it woul_d be unroasonable to treat that test as the niost satisfactory as a general rule. Having regard· to all the relevant facts the respondent cannot be said to be the employee of the appellant and could not claim to be an industrial employeeconcerned in the pending Industrial Disputes.·

. ,,

•

3 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 515

¶15

Shivananrlan Sharma v. Punjab National Bank, [1955]. 1 S. C. R. 1427, referred to.

¶16

Docks &: Harbour Board v. Googinns and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd., [1947] A. C. 1, held inapplicable.

¶17

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal ..""{ No. 523 of 1961. ·

¶18

106S

¶19

Kirloskar Oil tEnginu v. Hanmanl Laxman BibaWI

¶20

Appeal by speoial leave from the award dated September 2, 1960, of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra at Bombay in Complaint (I. T.) No. 38of1960.

¶21

I. N. Shroff, for the:appellants.

¶22

K. R. Ohoudhri, for the respondent.

¶23

· 1962. July 31. The Judgment of the oourt wa.~ delivered by

¶24

-J

¶25

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-The respondent Bibo.we Gajmiragaar-J. made an applioation to the Industri!i.l Tribunal at· Bombay under s. 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Aot, H}47, He alleged that he bad been employed by . the appellant M/s. Kir loskar Oil Engines, Limited, as a watohman sinoe July 21, 1958, and that he had been workingassuoh watchman with the appellant and had become its permanent workman. On May 15, 1960, the Security Officer of the appellant Company intimated to_ him that he had been discharged from service with efeot from that date. The respondent urged that at the time when this order of discharge was orally serV'ed on him, an industrial dispute was pending between the appellant and . its employees before an Industrial Tribunal and as such the respondent could not be discharged by the appellant without obtaining the approval of the Industrial Tribunal. In other words, his case was that his disoharge was in oontravention of the provisions of s. 33 and that is the basis of his application under s. 33-A.

¶26

516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]

¶27

Eid o"skar Oil Engints •• H anmant Laxmon Bibaw1

¶28

Gajendrag.adlar J.

¶29

The appellant denied that the respondant was its employee. It pleaded that the respondent's services had been made availa.ble to the appellant by an arrangement'. the terms of which clearly indicated that even whilst the respondent was working as a watchman of the appellant, he was not the employee of the appellant in the legal sense. That being so, it was argued that s. 33 was not nontra· vened and the application under s. 33-A was incom· petent.

¶30

It would thus be seen that the narrow point of dispute between the parties before the Tribunal was whether or not the respondent was the appellant's employee and as such could be said . to be a workman concerned in the dispute which was pending industrial adjudication at the time of his discharge. The Tribunal set forth the rival conten· tio'n of the parties on this point and observed that it could not accept either of the e:x:treme contentions taken by both the sides; even so in substance the Tribunal seems to have taken the view that s.33 had been contravened by the appellant and so an order has been passed directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent with full back wages from the date of his discharge. It is agQinst this order that the appellant has come to this Court by special leave.

¶31

'

¶32

On behalf of the appellant Mr. Shroff contends that the view taken by the Tribunal that the respo· ndent was the appellant's employee is plainly inco· nsistent with the scheme under which the respon· dent began to work as a watchman of the appellant and he argues that the oral evidence adduced by the parties in the present proceedings also show that the conclusion of the Tribunal i~ erroneous, In our opinion this contention ia well founded and must be upheld.

¶33

Turning to the scheme under which the respondent was asked to do the work as a watchman by

¶34

3 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 517 ·1 ' . ' '

¶35

the appellant, most of its material ·terms emphatically brin~ out the fa.ct that the respondent cannot be treated as the appellant's employee and cannot cla.im the status Of an industrial employee: It appears that the scheme has been evolved by which watchman are supplied by ·'the police · Department to different employers and this scheme was evolved because it was fqund th"t-there was a demand for such watchman by private individuab. ; There are several . pararaphs which set out the material terms and conditions 'of the scheme, The private person who require the services of watchman have to apply to the District Superintendent of Police, The District Superintendent of Police supplies a watchman if ho thinks a suitable watchman is available. The amount on account of pay of the watchman is recovered per month in advance from the employer. This amount has to he credited to the Watchman Fund on receipt of advance bills submitted from thA office of the Superintendent of Police. Out of the amount thus recovered from the employer Rs.5/8/- per month are deducted on account of the cost of clothing supplied and the balance is paid to the wachman. It is significant that t~e I.O.P. is authorised to vary this rate in any district under his control subject to the maximum of Rs. 30/- per annum. · The work done by the watchman is supervised by the , subordinate police,· particularly at night·by the night patrols who know 'where police watchmen are employed and look ·them up to see if they are alert. The men thus sent· as ' watchmen are mustered for duty in the police sedtion in which their emyloyer's bungalows are situated. They are paid by the Superintendent of Police direct. like ordinary.police. They are entirely under the · departmental control and orders of Supetintendent of Police and he alone can fine or punish them; the employers a.re not authorised 'to do so. In supply. ing watchmen the Superintendent has' to be very

¶36

1962

¶37

KirlQakar 0 fl Engines v. Hanmant Laxmatt Bibawe

¶38

Gaj•ndragadk1f' J.

¶39

¶40

518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963]

¶41

1968

¶42

1968 careful to see that the employer who asks for a wat· chnian is a person likely to be punctual in his Ei,loalar OJ Euginu payments and likely. to pay without . the amount Hanmant •• Laxman having to be demanded and without correspondence . Bib1.to1 An employer is requested to give a fortnight's notice in case he wants ·to dispense with the servi- GaJentlrogatlkar J,, ce ·Of the watchman. The credits on account of the pay of watchmen ·are made to the Watchman Fund. · Under this system the Superintendent of Police is the agent through whom such watchmen are employed and he alone is vested with such powers as vest in a master over his servant, and he takes this special duty upon himself in the interest of the public safety which it is his duty to secure. These are the. main features of tbe scheme under which the respendent's services were made available as watchman to the appellant.

¶43

' It would be noticed that almost each one of these terms emphatically brings out the fact that though the respondent was working as a watchman of the appellant, strictly speaking in law the relationship of master nnd servant <lid not subsist between the two. The payment was not made directly by the appellant to the respondent. He could not supervise his work ; he could not take any action against him in case his conduct was found to be unsatisfactory and in terms the scheme provides that it is the D. S. P. in whom the rights of the master vested qua, persons like the respondent ·whose. services were loaned to private individuals. In our opinion having regard to these terms of the scheme it is difficult to accept the view taken by the Tribunal that the respondent was an employee of the appellant, that he was an industrial employee and therefore he was a workman concerned in the dispute which was pending adjudication on the date of his discharge.

¶44

When we turn to the oral evidence, the position is just the same; The respondent gave evidence

¶45

.v

¶46

,_

¶47

3 s.c.R.. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 519

¶48

"I.

¶49

"" !Cirlorkar Oil Engin11 · .. HJnm •n' £.,~m1n B1bOW4

¶50

in support of his CMe. He admitted that after he was selected he was instructed by the appel!ant to go the Police Office and take uniform so that he took the uniform from the Police Office. Whf'ln he joined service he was asked to fill a form and it may be that whilst he was working as a watchman some orders may have been given to him by the appellant's officer. The respondent stated that when he took casual leave, sick leave and privilege leave he applied to the ·appellant; but this statement does not appear to be correct in view of the terms of the scheme to which we have already referred and in view of the categorical · statement made ' by Mr. Chorpade the Sub-inspeetor. Mr. Chorpade stated that leave is sanctioned by the police office; though he added that if the watchman wants casual leave he sometimes makes application through the employer. or direct to the office. so that it would not be o'lrrect to suggest that sick leave, privilege leave or casual leave were granted to the respondent as a matter of course by the appellant. The respon· dent admitted that he and the other watchmen were taken to the gate of Kirloskar Company by Police Jamada.r when they were interviewed and he admitted that Mr. Pansare came once or twice a month and enq!tired. with the management about the quality of the work of the watchmen. _He .also ad. mitted 'that his wages were· not .decided by any talk between him and appellant. When we turn to the evidence of Mr. Chorpade we find that the terms of employment and the subsequent treatment of the respondent by the appellant as watchmen were all consistent with the condition of the, system to which we have already referred. The uni. form supplied to the watchmen· is no doubt a little different from the constable's uniform, but it is prepared according · to Rule 426 of The Police Manual. These watchmen . are given buckle number and.the uniform supplied

¶51

Chjsndra1adkar J.

¶52

·- '

¶53

.• ~ "" t~~- '-:": J 520 SUPREME COURT. REPORTS [1963] t. ., .'/·' - _·f i~ .. ~ .. ' ;

¶54

1961

¶55

··-· - Ki,.los,Mr Oil E,ngir:es , •• Hi.nmant Loxman • Bihaw1 '· -.-· Gajendragadkar J,

¶56

to them. cannot be w-0rn ·.by' a pdvi;i;te · person. A Jamadar is ·posted at· the ·Polioe Station and he supervises over all :the watchmen employed. At the place of' duty one senior watchman' is asked to supervice the. work of watchmen.• The Jamadar at the Kirloska.r Oil Engines. is a. senior watchman. His pay is fixed byr the D.S.P, In factories where there are IO· or 15 watchmen· the factory sends hajri . of a.II watchmen to the •Police Office in the first week of the month for-the• preceding month. In the police ·station, there is muster• roll for marking attend'l.nce. ·If !the D.S.P. comes to know that the watchman's duty in not ·satisfactory he can with· draw him. The police staff also go for checking and if a· watchman is found • abaent or indulging in undesirable activities he in withdrawn even without the consent of the owner. The power to-withdraw vests in the D.S.P. and so is the power to transfAr. lt would thus be seen that this ore.I evidence also corroborates the•concluoion which follows irresistibly from the conditions of the system under which the respondent's service w a:s secured by the appellant. Therefore· it seems to1 us that the Tribunal was in error in; holding that the respondent is the appellant's employee. . '! r' , ;,. ,I ~ ~ . ,,_ "·t ·· • r • •

¶57

For the respondent Mr. Chaudhury has referred to a deoision .of this Court in Shivnandan Sharma v. The .Punjab"National' Bank Limited. {') In that . case this Court had occasion to consider the· question as to the tests. which should· be applied in determining whether a particular person is the employee ·of another -or· not, 1In discussing this question this :Court observed •tha' the· decision of such a question would always- depend . on .the facts and circumstances·- of ea.oh individual case. Then a. passage .was quoted from the ·speech of Lord Porter in-which.L()rdrPorter observed:·

¶58

. (I) [195S] I S.C.R. H27, 1443.

¶59

3.S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 521

,_..

. _,

1961

"Many factors have & bearing on the result. Who is paymaster, who can dis'lliss, how long the alternative service lasts, what machinery is employed, have all to be kept in mind. The expressions used in any individual case must always be considered in regared to the subject-matter under discussion but amongst the money tests suggested l think that the most satisfactory, by which to as certain who is the employer of any particular time, is to ask who is entitled to tell the employee the way in which he is to do the work upon which he is engaged, -

¶64

KirZ.skar Oil EnglnlS v." .. Hanmanl La:cman Bibaw1

¶65

Gajendragadkar J!

¶66

.Na.tu.rally Mr. Choudhury very strongly relies on the last mentioned test and he contends that it is the appeJlant who used to tell the respondent the way in_ which he should do the work of watching and so the respondant should be taken to be the appellan't employee. In our opinion as Lord Porter himself has observed the decision of the question as to the relationship of employer and employee must }e determined in the light of all relevant facts and circumstances and it would not be expedient to lay down any particular test as decisive ·in the matter. A test which may be important, and which may appear even as decisive in one set of circumstances, _ may not be important or decisive at all in the circumstances of other cases. It is true that I.ord Porter's observation on which Dr. Chondhury relies some to treat the particular test as most satisfactory; but, with respect, though the said test may ha Te been satisfactory in the facts - of the case with which Lord Portar was dealing, it would, we think, be unreasonable to treat that test as most - satisfactory in all cases as a general rule. Take, for instance the common case where an industrial establishment allots to the bungalows occupied by its officers gardeners and watJ hmen. These gardeners and watchmen are the

¶67

522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]

¶68

1962 employees of the industrial establishment, are paid by them and are subject to their control and super- Kirloskar Oil Entines vision. Even so, in doing their work as gardeners •• and watchmen from day to day, they would natur- lfaamant Laxlnan Bibaw1 ally take orders from the establishment's officers who, for the time being, are in occupation of the

¶69

•aj,,.ar.,atfkar J. bungalows. The officers in occupation of the bun• galows may change from time to time and the watchmen and gardeners may also be transferred from one bungalow to another by the establishment. It is plain that though the watchmen and gardners would take their orders from the occupants of the bungalows, they can not be said to be the servants of the officers who occupy the bungalows during their tenure of office. It would thus be seen that the te9t as to who is entitled to tell the employee the way in which he is to do his work would completely break down in such a case. That is why we are not prepared to accept Mr. Choudhury's argument that this particular test is of universal application and can be held to be satisfactory in all cases.

¶70

In the present case, where the respondent became the watchman of the appellant under a scheme. which has been evolved for supplying watchmen to private employers, the fact that the private employer may issue orders to the watchmen will not be an important consideration at all. It is the other terms and conditions of the system under which the arrangement has been made which may ~ have to be borne in mind and it is in the light of all the relevant facts that one has to reach the final decision. Having regard to all the relevant facts in this case, we are satisfied that the respondent cannot be said to be an employee of the appellant; and so, he cannot claim to be an industrial employee and as such, a workman concerned , .. 1 ' .' in • • the ' above ' •--

¶71

•

¶72

3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 523

¶73

industrial dispute pending: adjudication at the relevant; time,

¶74

The result is that the appeal must be allowed the order passed hy the tribunal set aside and the respondent's application under s. 33-A is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

¶75

190B

¶76

Kirloskar fi>il Engines . v. llanmant Loxman Bibawe

Gojendragadknr J.

Appeal dllowed.

"><I

ABDUL MATEEN

v.

RAM KAILASH PANDEY AND OTHERS

¶83

191J2

¶84

July 31.

¶85

(B· P. SINHA, C. J., K. N. WANOHOO, and J. c. SH.AH, JJ.)

¶86

Motor Vehicles-stage carriage permits-Applications invited by Regional Transport Authority for two vacanciesMinister of Transport gave an additional permit-Whether lega~ -Scope of s. 64-A-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (4 of 1939), as amended by Bihar Amen<lment Act No. XXVII of 1950, ss. 47, 48, 57, 64, 64-A.

¶87

.. _.

¶88

A new route was advertised by the Regional Transport Authority and applications were invited for two permanent stage carriage permits. The Regional Transport Authority granted the two permits to the appellant and another person. An appeal against that order failed. Sudhakar Sharma, one of the respondents, moved the High Court under Art. 226 and the order of the appellate authority was quashed. When the case went back to the Appellate Authority, the permit granted to the appellant was cancelled and was given to Sudhakar Sharma. The appellant made an application to the State Government under s. 64· ~ of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by the B1har Amendment Act No. XXVII of 1950. The Minister of Transport upheld the order of the appellate authority cancelling the permit of the appellant and granting the same to Sudhakar Sharma, but granted an additional permit to the appellant. Ram Kailash Pandey filed a rit petiOon in the Hih Coiµ-t challeni tP.e 9rder of tll(i

M/S. Kirloskar Oil Engines v. Hanmant Laxman Bibawe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kirloskar Oil Engines v. Hanmant Laxman Bibawe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Dev versus the State of Punjab

Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. versus Its Workmen

Jabalpur Electric Supply Co. versus Sambhu Prasad Srivastava & Others

The Management of Newspaper Express Ltd. versus Workers & Staff Employed Under It and Others .

Amritsar Ra Yon & Silk Mills versus Their Workmen

M/S. L. H. Sugar Factories and Oil Mills (P) Ltd. versus Their Workmen