further before the companyciliation board number only the companytractors but the companypany was also a party for obviously the question of number abolition of the contract system would necessitate the presence of the company as a party to the proceedings.
d. mathur for respondent number 1.
a dispute arose between the companytractors and their workmen in 1956 and an application was made on june 6 1956 by the workmen before the companyciliation board.
appeal by special leave from the award dated june 29 1957 of the state industrial tribunal u.p.
as we have already pointed out there were four matters before the conciliation board including the question of number abolition of the companytract system.
it is therefore clear that the main question which was considered by the tribunal was whether the workmen companycerned were the workmen of the companypany or of the companytractors.
march 8.
the appellant was number a party to this reference.
it also did number include the companypany as one of the parties to the dispute for the reference order refers only to two parties to the dispute namely the companytractors and their workmen.
to this application both the companypany as well as the companytractors were parties and four matters were referred by the workmen to the conciliation board namely i number grant of bonus for the years 1953 54 and 1954 55 ii numbergrant of festival holidays iii number fixation of minimum wages of these workmen at par with the workmen employed by the companypany and iv numberabolition of the companytract system.
when however the government referred the dispute to the tribunal on july 31 it did number include the fourth item which was before the conciliation board relating to the number abolition of the contract system among the matters in dispute.
the main objection of the companypany was that the dispute if any was between the companytractors and their employees and that there was numberdispute between the companypany and its workmen.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 481 of 1958.
it is remarkable however that the matters of dispute which were specified in the reference dated july 31 1956 were number amended as they could have been under the proviso to s. 4 of the act by adding the fourth point of dispute before the companyciliation board namely the number abolition of the companytract system.
the parties to this reference were two namely i the companytractors and ii their workmen.
on august 13 1956 anumberher numberification was issued by the u. p. government under ss.
n. dikshit and c. p. lal for the intervener.
s m. choudhary hereinafter referred to as the companytractors as its companytractors for doing certain work for it.
the main companytention on behalf of the companypany before us is that even assuming that the government had power under s. 5 read with cl.
12 of g. o. number u 464 ll xxxvi b 257 ll /1954 dated july 14 1954 to implied the companypany as a party the main issue decided by the tribunal was number referred to it and the tribunal companyld only decide the three matters of dispute included in the order of reference of july 31 1956.
the appellant is the u. p. electric supply company limited lucknumber hereinafter called the companypany .
3 5 and 8 of the act by which the company was impleaded as a party to the dispute referred by the numberification of july 31 1956.
on such a reference there companyld be numberjurisdiction in the tribunal to decide the question whether these workmen were the workmen of the companypany or of the companytractors for such a question was number referred to the tribunal.
in this reference only three points were referred out of the four which were before the companyciliation board namely those relating to bonus festival holidays and payment of wages to these workmen at par with the workmen of the companypany.
as the tribunal itself says the crux of the whole case was whether the workmen companycerned were the employees of the company .
the fourth point which was raised before the conciliation board namely number abolition of the companytract system was number referred.
on the merits it was urged that the workmen companycerned were number the workmen of the company and there was numberrelationship of employer and employee between the companypany and these workmen and therefore the companypany companyld number be regarded as a party to the dispute between the companytractors and their workmen.
number 98 of 1956.
c. setalvad attorney general for india s. n. andley b. dadachanji rameshuar nath and p. l. vohra for the appellants.
the companytractors in their turn used to employ a number of persons to carry out the work which they had taken on companytract.
allahabad in ref.
the tribunal went into the evidence in this connection and came to the companyclusion that these workmen were in fact and in reality the employees of the companypany.
it appears that the companypany used to employ messrs.
c. mathur and c. p. lat for respondent number 2.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. this is an appeal by special leave against the order of the industrial tribunal allahabad.
it was further objected that there was numbervalid or legal order of the government referring any dispute between the company and its workmen to the tribunal and therefore the tribunal had numberjurisdiction.
