Supervisory jurisdiction and contractor workers: High Court review under Article 227 and employee status under industrial law upheld.

Article 227 permits supervisory interference to keep tribunals within jurisdiction and correct an erroneous legal approach, but not to act as an appellate forum; on the facts, the High Court's interference and remand were upheld. Under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, a contractor's employees may still qualify as "employees" if the contracted work is ordinarily part of the undertaking; gardeners engaged for mill garden maintenance were not excluded as a matter of law, and the unresolved factual question was left for fresh consideration by the Industrial Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, could interfere with the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court; (ii) whether gardeners employed through a contractor for maintenance of the mill garden could fall within the definition of "employee" under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1947, as workmen engaged in work ordinarily part of the undertaking.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, could interfere with the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court.

Analysis: The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not an appellate power, but it may be used to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority. The impugned order finally disposed of the proceedings before the High Court and affected the rights of the parties. On the facts, the High Court did not act as a court of appeal, but corrected an erroneous view of law and remitted the matter for decision on the remaining factual question.

Conclusion: The High Court was competent to interfere under Article 227, and its order did not warrant interference.

Issue (ii): Whether gardeners employed through a contractor for maintenance of the mill garden could fall within the definition of "employee" under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1947, as workmen engaged in work ordinarily part of the undertaking.

Analysis: The statutory scheme extended the Act to the cotton textile undertaking and defined "employee" to include a person employed by a contractor to do work in execution of a contract with the owner where the work is ordinarily part of the undertaking. The reasoning adopted a pragmatic and realistic approach, emphasising that modern industrial undertakings include allied and complementary activities that maintain the working conditions of the industry. Garden maintenance attached to the mill could, depending on its nature and connection with the undertaking, fall within the statutory concept, and the matter was to be examined further by the Industrial Court on the unresolved factual issue.

Conclusion: Gardeners employed through a contractor were not excluded as a matter of law, and the remand for fresh consideration was .

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, the High Court's interference under Article 227 was upheld, and the matter remained remitted for decision by the Industrial Court on the outstanding factual question.

Ratio Decidendi: A contractor's employee may fall within the statutory definition of employee where the contracted work is ordinarily part of the undertaking, and the High Court may interfere under Article 227 to correct an erroneous legal approach and remit unresolved matters for fresh decision.

---