D. A. Desai, J. - (1.) The State of U. P. referred an industrial dispute between the appellant M/s. Shining Tailors, the employer and the respondent workmen for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow.
(2.) Chronology of events leading to the surfacing of the dispute may be briefly stated. Appellant-employer has a fairly big tailoring establishment at Subhashnagar, Faizabad. Respondent workmen 25 in number formed a Union named Faizabad Tailoring Workers Union (Union for short). The Union espoused the cause of the workmen by making a demand for increasing the tailoring charges and there was a strike in support of the demand. The timeworn usual response of the employer was to dismiss some workmen and then declare a lockout, a fact in dispute and terminate the service of all the workmen. This led to the industrial dispute being referred to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference was not happily worded but the Tribunal was called upon to adjudicate on the question whether the lockout declared by the employer on July 27, 1974 and the subsequent action of termination of service of the workmen was legal and valid; if not, what relief should be given to the workmen
(3.) After the workmen submitted the statement of claim, the employer resorted to the usual clitich of contending that there is no relationship of master and servant or employer and workmen between the appellant and the respondents. A preliminary issue was raised to the effect whether there has been no relationship of master and servant between M/s. Shining Tailors, Faizabad and the persons mentioned in the annexure to the order of reference for reasons mentioned in para 5 of the written statement of the employer ' Reasoning of the Tribunal is jumbled and confusing but when properly analysed the Tribunal appears to have reached the conclusion that the respondent-workmen were independent contractors paid on piece rate and were not the workmen of the appellant employer. As a corollary, the Tribunal further held that as the respondents were not the workmen of the appellant, there was no question of declaring a lockout in respect of them. So saying the tribunal rejected the reference.;