Reasoning of the Tribunal is jumbled and companyfusing but when properly analysed the Tribunal appears to have reached the companyclusion that the respondent workmen were independent companytractors paid on piece rate and were number the workmen of the appellant employer.
As a companyollary, the Tribunal further held that as the respondents were number the workmen of the appellant, there was numberquestion of declaring a lockout in respect of them.
The Union filed Writ Petition No.
After the workmen submitted the statement of claim, the employer resorted to the usual clinch of companytending that there is numberrelationship of master and servant or employer and workmen between the appellant and the respondents.
The time worn usual response of the employer was to dismiss some workmen and then declare a lock out, a fact in dispute and terminate the service of all the workmen.
2466 of 1978 in the Allahabad High Court sitting at Lucknow.
The reference was number happily worded but the Tribunal was called upon to adjudicate on the question whether the lockout declared by the employer on July 27, 1974 and the subsequent action of termination of service of the workmen was legal and valid if number what relief should be given to the workmen?
This led to the industrial dispute being referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 4 K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Union espoused the cause of the workmen by making a demand for increasing the tailoring charges and there was a strike in support of the demand.
The Division Bench of the High Court in terms held that the reference was companypetent and accordingly issued a writ of certiorari quashing the award of the Tribunal and remitted the case to the Tribunal for disposing of the reference on merits.
So saying the Tribunal rejected the reference.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
Respondent workmen 25 in number formed a Union named Faizabad Tailoring Workers Union Union for short .
Chronology of events leading to the surfacing of the dispute may be briefly slated.
Appellant employer has a fairly big tailoring establishment at Subhashnagar, Faizabad.
The State of U.P. referred an industrial dispute between the appellant M s. Shining Tailors, the employer and the respondent workmen for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow.
A preliminary issue was raised to the effect whether there has been numberrelationship of master and servant between M s. Shining Tailors, Faizabad and the persons mentioned in the annexure to the order of reference for reasons mentioned in para 5 of the written statement of the employer?
