Ramaswami, J.— This appeal is brought from the award of the Industrial Tribunal Punjab, Patiala dated April 15, 1963 in Reference No. 5 of 1962, published in the Punjab Government Gazette (Part I) dated May 3, 1963.
2. The appellant is a Factory under the name and style of Messrs. Shibu Metal Works, Jagadhari, being a partnership concern registered under the Partnership Act and carrying on the business of manufacture of Circle Sheets and brass utensils. The appellant has been employing about 65 to 70 workmen who were shown on the muster rolls. Among other sections of the Factory the appellant has three sections; viz. Chhilai, Lathe and Press where it adopted the practice of getting its work done through contractors. On October 30, 1957 there was a settlement between the workmen and the management with regard to several matters. The settlement was arrived at before the Conciliation Officer and one of the terms of the settlement was an undertaking by the workmen not to raise any dispute covered or not covered by the settlement for 5 years i.e from 1st April, 1957 till March 31, 1962 except in cases of victimisation. The Secretary, Metal Mazdoor Sabha served a demand notice on 3rd July, 1962 upon the appellant with regard to many matters. On December 7, 1962 the Punjab Government referred the following three demands out of the demand notice for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab at Patiala vide Notification No. 3754-IB-Lab-III-62/16470:
“(1) Whether the action of the management in not providing full work to Shri Hari Ram during the year 1962 and thereby depriving him of his full wages is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact compensation he is entitled.
(2) Whether the contract system of taking work of the permanent nature in the following sections/departments of the concern by the management from the contract labour should be abolished:
(1) Chhilai, (2) Lathe, (3) Press
(3) Whether the workmen are entitled to the grant of casual leave with wages in a year/ If so, how much in a year and with what details?”
A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the appellant before the Industrial Tribunal that this Reference was bad in law because the Settlement dated October 30, 1957 was extended for another 5 years by the second agreement dated February 21, 1962 by which the workmen undertook not to raise any dispute for 5 years except in a case of victimisation. The preliminary objection was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the workmen who negotiated with the management for extending the agreement had the authority of the other workmen of the establishment as required by Rule 58(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes (Punjab) Rules. On the merits of the Reference the Industrial Tribunal decided Item 1 regarding Hari Ram's victimisation in favour of the management. With regard to the other two items viz. abolition of contract labour and the grant of casual leave, the Industrial Tribunal held that the management should abolish the contract labour system within a period of three months from the date the award came into operation and that the management should grant 6 days' casual leave with wages in a year to the workmen.
3. On behalf of the appellant it was contended, in the first place, that the Industrial Tribunal was in error in holding that the agreement — Ex. R-1 commencing with effect from April 1, 1957 was not extended for another 5 years uptil March 31, 1967 by a second agreement — Ex. R-2. Rule 58(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes (Punjab) Rules provides that the settlement shall be signed in case of workmen either by the President and Secretary of a trade union of workmen, or by five representatives of the workmen duly authorised in this behalf at a meeting of the workmen held for the purpose. The case of the management was that a meeting of the workmen was actually held and in that meeting they authorised the five workmen to sign the settlement — Ex. R-2. Reliance was also placed on the evidence of RW 2 — Jai Kumar. But the Industrial Tribunal has rejected the oral evidence of RW 2 and held that there was no proof that the 5 workmen were authorised by the other workmen in accordance with Rule 58(2)(b) to negotiate with the management and extend the period of settlement. The Industrial Tribunal has commented that the evidence of RW 2 was not supported by any documentary evidence and the proceedings of the alleged meeting of the workmen were not produced. The Industrial Tribunal accordingly rejected the preliminary objection that the Reference was bad in law because of previous agreement. The finding of the Industrial Tribunal on this point is essentially a question of fact and it is not open to the appellant to challenge this finding in appeal.
4. It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that it was not possible to completely abolish the system of contract labour because the work of the appellant-Factory was always fluctuating. It was submitted that contract labour was in a very advantageous position as compared to regular employees of the appellant-Factory as contract labour could do various jobs in different factories and at high rates of wages. It was contended that the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in asking the management to abolish the system of contract labour. We do not think there is any warrant for this submission. The case of the workmen before the Tribunal was that the Chhilai, Lathe and Press work is of a permanent nature and is part and parcel of the manufacturing process of the goods of the industrial concern. It is contended on behalf of the workmen that the labour engaged by contract was deprived of legal facilities which the other workmen of the Factory enjoyed under various statutes and the engagement of contract labour for these three sections of the Factory was an unfair labour practice. The Tribunal has examined the evidence adduced by the parties on this point and recorded the finding that the work in all the three sections was of a permanent nature and not intermittent or temporary and that the system of contract labour should be abolished. In view of this finding of the Industrial Tribunal we are of the opinion that there was no justification for the management to employ contract labour for the three sections of Chhilai, Lathe and Press. Reference should be made, in this connection, to the following observations made in the report of the Royal Commission on Labour in India:
“Whatever the merits of the system in primitive times, it is now desirable if the management has to discharge completely the complex responsibility laid upon it by law and by equity, that the Manager should have full control over the selection, hours of work and payment of the workers.”
The same opinion has been affirmed by several Labour Enquiry Committees appointed in different States. In Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India Ltd. v. Workmen (1960) 2 LLJ 233 this Court has expressed the view that in dealing with the dispute on its merits it may be relevant to bear in mind that industrial adjudication generally does not encourage the employment of contract labour in modern times, but the question in a given case should not merely be decided on theoretical or academic considerations but also on the terms and conditions on which contract labour was employed in the particular case and the grievance made by the employees in respect thereof. In the present case, the Industrial Tribunal has found that contract labour was being employed for work which was of a permanent nature and it was part of the manufacturing process of the goods manufactured in the Factory. The matter would have been different if the work had been of intermittent or temporary nature or so little in extent that it would not be possible to employ whole-time workmen for the purpose. In these circumstances we see no reason for interfering with the award of the Tribunal on this point. On behalf of the appellant the findings of the Tribunal on the other issues were not challenged in this appeal.
5. We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.