Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India v. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company
- 2022-02-17
Citation:1978 AIR 1410
Bench: Krishnaiyer, v.r. Desai, D.A. Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)
FACTS:
This case relates to the definition of an employer. The petitioner owned a factory which was in the business of manufacturing ropes. Independent contractors had been hired by him in order to run the factory. The contractors had in turn hired workmen in order to carry out the work.
The petitioner claimed that the workmen were not his employees but the employees of the contractor. A single judge bench of the Kerala High Court had held that the petitioner was the employer and the workmen were his employees.
ISSUES:
Whether the employees of a contractor to the principal employer would be protected by the Industrial Disputes Act.
JUDGMENT:
The work done by the workmen was integral to the industry, the raw material was supplied by the Management and the premises of the factory and the equipment also belonged to the management. The workmen also fell under the control do the management and the quality of the work was inspected by the management. The management also ordered the workmen to fix defective articles that had been produced. It can be seen that the control of the management in the employment of the workmen was pervasive.
The Court examined the facts and found that:
The management had the economic control over the subsistence of the workers.
It had control over the utilization of their skill and continued employment.
If the management terminated their business for any reason, the workers would virtually be laid off.
The Court therefore found that the presence of intermediate contractors had not material influence when it was clear upon lifting the veil that the real employer with true control was the management.
The Court observed that any layer of concealment would have to be removed when examining the factors that govern employment and held that the petitioner was the true employer.
