GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. - (1.) THE termination of services of 56 workers by appellant 1, the India General Navigation and Railway Company, Ltd., led to an industrial dispute which was referred to the presiding officer of the industrial tribunal, Assam, for his adjudication, by the Governor of Assam under S.10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (hereinafter called the Act). The two issues which were the subject-matter of the reference were : (1) whether the management of Rivers Steam Navigation and India General Navigation and Railway Company, Ltd., Kokilamukh Agency, Neamati, are justified in terminating the services of 56 workers of Subansirimukh; and (2) are they entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and with full wages for the period of unemployment and/or any other relief ?
(2.) APPELLANT 1 urged before the tribunal that the 56 workers were not its employees, and in the alternative, is alleged that the termination of services of such 56 workmen was the result of closure of appellant 1's business at Subansirimukh Ghat and as such, the workmen concerned were entitled to no relief. The tribunal has found that the 56 workmen in question were the employees of appellant 1. It has held that the closure was bona fide and real. Even so, it has found that each worker was entitled to compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months, under Sub-sec. (1) of S.25FFF of the Act. It is against this award that appellant 1 has come to this Court by special leave.
(3.) THE first point which Sri Setalvad has urged before us is that the tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that the relationship of master and servant had been established between appellant 1 and the 56 workmen in question. Since we are satisfied that this contention is well-founded, we will dispose of this appeal on that narrow ground alone. It is clear that if the relationship of master and servant is not established between appellant 1 and the workmen in question, the tribunal can give no relief to them.Appellant 1 carried on business of Inland Water Transport in northeast India between various river stations in Bengal and Assam. In connexion with this business it maintains a number of ghats or stations on the river Brahmaputra in Assam. One of such ghats was at Subansirimukh. This ghat was maintained by appellant 1 prior to April 1960, for the purpose of a feeder service operating on the Subansiri river. Appellant 1 did not employ any workmen at any of the ghats for the work of cargo-handling and left all such work to be carried on by different handling contractors.;