D.C.

Dewan Mohideen Sahib and Sons

Vs.
The Industrial Tribunal, Madras

MANU/SC/0321/1964

- Gnyanada Pallepati
20161076

BENCH: P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J., K.N. Wanchoo and K.C. Das Gupta, JJ.

FACTS:

The case is between the proprietors of two bidi concerns (appellants) and its workmen. The
appellants have reduced two annas from the wages of the workers who were employed by the
agents of the appellant. The appellants in the given case argued that the workers involved
here are not workers of the appellants but that of the Individual Contractors and hence there is
no employee-employer relationship between the proprietors and the workmen. The court in
this case analyzes the essential elements required to say if there is a servant-master
relationship existing between an employee and an employer.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the contractors are Independent contractors or mere managers of the

appellants?
2. Whether the dispute falls under the purview of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute
Act?
3. Whether there exists an employee-employer relationship between the appellants and
the workmen?

HOLDING:

The Supreme Court held that the Independent contractors were mere managers appointed by
the appellants and the relationship between the appellants and the workmen (bidi rollers) is an
employee-employer relationship. As a result of this, the dispute falls under the ambit of
Section 2(k) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

RATIONALE:

The Supreme Court has accepted with the view of the Tribunal and the Appeal court and has
rejected the views of the Single Judge. The Court said that the Independent Contractors were
in all manners under the control and supervision of the appellants. After going through the
contract between the appellants and the contractors, the court said that it’s difficult to accept
that there is no kind of control and supervision of the appellants over the Independent
contractors and in turn the workmen (bidi rollers). To analyze the control and supervision
test, the court has looked back at its precedents which deal with the question of the servant-
master relationship between an employee and an employer. Considering all the facts,
circumstances and the precedents, the Supreme in this case held that since the appellants had
control and supervision over the contractors and workmen, their relationship falls under the
ambit of an employee-employer relationship.