Contract labour under industrial law treated as workmen of the principal employer, with standing-order benefits applying.

Workmen engaged through a contractor to perform work ordinarily forming part of an industry were treated as workmen of the industry owner, because the inclusive definition of employer was construed to prevent evasion of statutory labour protections through contractual labour. The challenge that this extended definition violated Article 19(1)(g) failed, as the restriction was held to be in the interest of the general public. The Standing Orders were also read broadly to cover persons employed to do the work of the factory, including contract labour, so minimum wages and reinstatement benefits applied. The statutory scheme was therefore held to extend these protections to such workmen.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether workmen engaged through a contractor for work ordinarily forming part of the industry were workmen of the appellant company and the company was their employer under the Act; (ii) whether the extended definition of employer offended Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; (iii) whether such workmen were entitled to the benefit of the Standing Orders prescribing minimum wages and consequential reinstatement.

Issue (i): Whether workmen engaged through a contractor for work ordinarily forming part of the industry were workmen of the appellant company and the company was their employer under the Act.

Analysis: The inclusive definition of employer was construed to cover the owner of an industry where work ordinarily forming part of the industry was executed through a contractor. The definition of workmen was held wide enough to include persons employed to do manual work in the industry, whether engaged directly by the management or through a contractor. The construction was adopted to prevent evasion of the Act by interposing a contractor.

Conclusion: The respondents were held to be workmen of the appellant company and the company was held to be their employer.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended definition of employer offended Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Any restriction resulting from the definition was treated as one imposed in the interest of the general public. The Court held that the provision was designed to prevent avoidance of statutory protections by resort to contractual labour and therefore answered the requirement of public interest.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 19(1)(g) failed.

Issue (iii): Whether such workmen were entitled to the benefit of the Standing Orders prescribing minimum wages and consequential reinstatement.

Analysis: The expression "employed by a factory" in the Standing Orders was interpreted broadly to include persons employed to do the work of the factory, including workmen engaged through contractors. The Standing Orders were read as intended to apply to workmen falling within the statutory definition, and no basis was found to exclude contract labour from their benefit. The additional objection based on the reinstatement clause was not entertained as it had not been raised on the record below.

Conclusion: The respondents were held entitled to the benefit of the Standing Orders, including minimum wages and reinstatement.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme was held to extend industrial protections and standing-order benefits to contract labour engaged in work ordinarily forming part of the industry, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where work ordinarily forming part of an industry is executed through a contractor, the owner of the industry is the employer of the engaged workmen for purposes of industrial-dispute protections, and standing-order benefits apply to such workmen unless expressly excluded.

---