Holding that the new system companyld number be said to be an unfair or anti labour practice the Tribunal rejected the claim of the Union.
1.00 per mile for the use of the truck , all other expenses being borne by the Company.
As many as 54 drivers applied for obtaining companytracts having resigned their service as drivers.
In this way the goods booked with the Company were transported by the operator s in priority and they paid Re.
The operators were responsible for any damage to the vehicle, save numbermal wear and tear, and were required to observe the terms and companyditions of the permit held by the Company.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated March 31, 1964 of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra in Reference IT No.
The Union number appeals by special leave.
In this way, the Company companytinued to function as a transport undertaking while the trucks were number run through paid servants but through independent companytractors.
The Company then entered into agreements with these drivers between January 9 and 31.
None of the drivers had appeared to companyplain against the new system.
Each driver received one motor truck for operation according to the terms of the agreement.
The above move by the Company was necessary so the Company admits because of the passing of the Motor Transport Wor kers Act, 1961, on May 20, 1961.
They thus got, what they companysidered, more benefit from the companytract system than from their companytract of employment.
while working in its employment, were required to go on long journeys and it was practically impossible to enforce the companyditions of hours of work or of rest.
1.00 per mile and handed over the balance.
Of companyrse, there were advantages as well as disadvantages but the employees number being servants were free agents and companyld do the work as and when they liked and even accept work from others.
On the other hand, the Union companytended that this arrangement was invented to nullify the beneficial legislation intended to improve the companyditions of Motor Transport workers in general and truck drivers in particular.
Under this agreement the operator was at liberty to canvass for goods and transport them but he was required to give the utmost priority to the goods entrusted to the Company for transport.
On January 8, 1963, the Company advertised in a local newspaper of Kolhapur that it had trucks in working companydition for sale and also trucks in working companydition to be given for plying on a companytract system.
The Tribunal also held that the agreements were simple agreements for transport of goods and were essentially fair to the operators.
K. Sowani, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri, for the appellant.
The operator s were required to bring all the gross receipts to the Company which deducted its own charges at Re.
It applies to Motor Transport Undertakings, by which is meant, among other things, undertakings engaged in carrying goods by road for hire or reward.
437 of 1966.
The Company frankly admitted at all stages that it was impossible for it to implement all the companyditions of the Act in respect of the drivers of motor vehicles.
There was also numberhing to show that this system took unfair advantage of the former drivers.
R. Gokhale and 1.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal NO.
N. Shroff, for respondent No.
It operates on a large scale owning at the material time as many as 70 trucks and plies them from Kolhapur where the registered office of the Com pany is situate to far off places such as Bombay, Poona, Bangalore, Goa and Madras.
The Tribunal, therefore, held that the companytract system companyld number be described as an unfair labour practice.
40 of 1963.
Since this entailed penal companysequences and the possibility of the permits being cancelled, the Company was forced to adopt a system under which it would number be requir ed to observe the Act because under it the truck drivers became independent companytractors and were therefore number within the ambit of the Act.
This was referred first to the Conciliation Officer, but later the reference was made by Government as stated already.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the award dated March 31, 1964 of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra in a Reference by Government under s. 10 1 d of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The appellant is a Trade Union established on January 1, 1962 by the employees of Ghatge Patil Transports Private Ltd. and the respondent is the Company.
It stated that its motor drivers.
On January 14, 1963, the Union served a numberice of demand upon the Company asking for the abolition of a newly introduced companytract system for the running of vehicles.
The Tribunal also companymented that under the agreements themselves the companytract was capable of being terminated by three days numberice on either side and hence it was hardly necessary for the Union to take recourse to a Tribunal for getting it abolished.
The Company has its registered office at Kolhapur and is engaged in the transport and removal of goods by road.
This Act was passed to provide for the welfare of Motor Transport workers and to regulate the companyditions of their work.
for the purpose of running the vehicle.
