Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Baliram Domaji Shende, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court which set aside the Labour Court's decision in his favor. The petitioner had been engaged by the respondent, Maharashtra Elektrosmelt Private Limited, from 1981 to repair shoes of employees on a piece-rate basis. He was paid according to work done, and his average monthly wages were Rs. 600. After his representation for regular employment was rejected, his services were terminated by letter dated 28.09.1988. He filed a complaint under Section 28 read with Items 1(a), (b), (d), and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), alleging illegal termination and victimization. The Labour Court allowed the complaint on 26.09.1991, ordering reinstatement with continuity and full back wages. The respondent's revision application was allowed by the Industrial Court on 02.03.1985, which set aside the Labour Court's order and dismissed the complaint. The High Court framed the issue of whether the petitioner was an 'employee' under Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The court noted that the petitioner was a shoe repairer working on piece rates, not under the control of the respondent regarding how or when to work. Applying the control test, the court held that the relationship was that of an independent contractor, not a master-servant relationship. Consequently, the petitioner was not an 'employee' under the Act, and the complaint was not maintainable. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Definition of Employee - Section 3(13) Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - Piece-Rate Worker - The petitioner, a shoe repairer paid on piece-rate basis, was not under the control of the respondent and thus not an 'employee' under the Act. The court held that the relationship was that of an independent contractor, not master-servant, and therefore the complaint of unfair labour practice was not maintainable. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was an 'employee' within the meaning of Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The petitioner was not an 'employee' under Section 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, and the complaint was not maintainable.
Law Points
- Definition of employee under Section 3(13) of Bombay Industrial Relations Act
- 1946
- Piece-rate worker not an employee
- Control test
- Master-servant relationship
- Unfair labour practice under MRTU & PULP Act
