Hidayatullah, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the award dated March 31, 1964 of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra in a Reference by Government under S. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellant is a Trade Union established on January 1, 1962 by the employees of Ghatge and Patil (Transports) Private Ltd. and the respondent is the Company. The Company has its registered office at Kolhapur and is engaged in the transport and removal of goods by road. It operates on a large scale owning at the material time as many as 70 trucks and plies them from Kolhapur (where the registered office of the Company is situate) to far off places such as Bombay, Poona, Bangalore, Goa and Madras.
(2.) On January 14, 1963, the Union served a notice of demand upon the Company asking for the abolition of a newly introduced contract system for the running vehicles. This was referred first to the Conciliation Officer, but later the reference was made by Government as stated already. The dispute arose in the following circumstances:
(3.) For the operation of its trucks the Company was previously employing 70 drivers ors and an equal number of cleaners. On January 8, 1963 the Company advertised in a local newspaper of Kolhapur that it had trucks in walking condition for sale and also trucks in working condition to be given plying on a contract system. As many as 54 drivers applied for obtaining contracts having resigned their service as drivers. The Company then entered into agreements with these drivers between January 9 and 31. Each driver received one motor truck for operation according to the terms of the agreement. A model agreement has been produced in the case in which the parties, after reciting that there were difficulties in operating motor transport vehicles, because of the passing of the Motor Transport Workers Act, stated that the agreement was being entered into for the operation of the trucks. It is not necessary either to set out the agreement or to analyse all its terms. For our purpose it is sufficient to say that the Company let to these former drivers (to whom we may refer as operators) a truck each on condition that they paid the Company Re. 1.00 per mile for its use. The Company on its part undertook to supply fuel, oil, tyres, tubes, etc. for the purpose of running the vehicle. Under this agreement the operator was at liberty to canvass for goods and transport them but he was required to give the utmost priority to the goods entrusted to the Company for transport. In this way the goods booked with the Company were transported by the operators in priority and they paid Re. 1.00 per mile for the use of the truck, all other expenses being borne by the Company. The operators were required to bring all the gross receipts to the Company which deducted its own charges at Re. 1.00 per mile and handed over the balance. The operators were responsible for any damage to the vehicle, save normal wear and tear, and were required to observe the terms and conditions of the permit held by the Company. In this way, the Company continued to function as a transport undertaking while the trucks were not run through paid servants but through independent contractors.;