Judgment 1. In this case the petitioner Ram Khelawan Prasad has moved the High Court for grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for calling up and quashing the award of the Central Government industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, dated the 25th May, 1960, in Reference No. 6 of 1960. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondent No. 3, Messrs Dhemo Main Colliery, but there is no appearance on behalf of the other respondents to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given. 2. It appears that there was an agreement between the petitioner and Dhemo Main Colliery, respondent No. 3, under which the petitioner agreed to be paid 30 np per tub of coal trammed at the surface of the colliery and a commission of 3 nP per tub. It is alleged by the petitioner that he procures the employment of labourers for raising coal at the colliery and supervises their work. It is said that respondent No. 2, Arjun Nunia was employed as a surface trammer in the colliery, but on the 1st of July, 1959, he was dismissed by the petitioner on certain charges. There was a conciliation proceeding in the matter and on the 13th of January, 1960, the Government of India referred the dispute under Sec.10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad. The order of the Central Government is Annexure B to the writ application and reads as follows : "Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that ar industrial dispute exists between the employers in relation to the Dhemo Main Colliery and their workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto annexed; And whereas the Central Government consders it desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Sec.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for adjudication to the industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad constituted under Section 7A of the said Act. Schedule Whether the discharge of Shri Arjun Nunja, surface trammer, with effect from the 1st July, 1959, was justified and if not, to what relief is he entitled and from whom, i.e. whether from the management of Dhemo Main Colliery or the Contractor, Shri Ram Khelawan?" 3. After making enquiry into the matter, the central Government Industrial Tribunal held that the petitioner, Ram Khelawan Prasad, should take back Arjun Nunia in his employment and should also pay compensation to Arjun Nunia at the rate of half his average monthly earnings right from 1st July, 1959, up to the date of his reinstatement. On behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel stressed the argument that the reference of the Central Government was ultra vires and without jurisdiction since the petitioner Ram Khelawan Prasad could not be treated as an "employer" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and there was no "industrial dispute" between the parties within the meaning of that Act. We do not think there is any substance in the argument. According to paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit, there was a written contract between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 under which the petitioner was paid at the rate of 30 nP. per tub of coal trammed at the surface and also a commission of 3 nP. per tub. The contract is reproduced in Annexure X to the counter-affidavit and reads as follows : "Colliery -- Dhemo Main To. A. Lala, Cont. Ramkhelon Cont. Lala Cont. Arrange to start work at once en Tramming Coal tubs at surface, Dishergarh Seam, at the following rates : Description of work (Full descriptive detail must be given)Rates in worksRemarks. For tramming of coal tubs on the surface D Seam by their own men.0.30 nP. per tub Commission 0.03 per Tub. Sd. Illeg. Manager. Signed Illegible in Hindi. Sd. Illeg. 25.4.60 I agree to carry out the work on the rates and terms stated herein. Sd. Illeg. Contractor" It is also stated on behalf of respondent No. 3 that there was no relationship of employer and employee between Arjun Nunia and respondent No. 3. It is, however, conceded that respondent No. 3 was responsible for medical treatment and sick Khorakee, supervision of work, disciplinary action and payment of bonus, but ail these were statutory obligations. Sd. Illeg. Contractor" It is also stated on behalf of respondent No. 3 that there was no relationship of employer and employee between Arjun Nunia and respondent No. 3. It is, however, conceded that respondent No. 3 was responsible for medical treatment and sick Khorakee, supervision of work, disciplinary action and payment of bonus, but ail these were statutory obligations. After examining the evidence on the point, the Tribunal has found that the petitioner was responsible for appointment and dismissal of Arjun Nunia and he was also responsible for granting him leave and payment of wages. The finding of the Tribunal is that there was relationship of employer and employee as between the petitioner and Arjun Nunia. in our opinion, this finding is not vitiated by any error of law. We accordingly reject the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no "industrial dispute" between the parties in this case and the reference to tiie Cen. tral Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, under Sec.10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act is incompetent. 4 Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court in Shivnandan Sharma V/s. Punjab National Bank Ltd,, (S) AIR 1955 SC 404 and Dharngadhra Chemical Works Ltd. V/s. State of Saurashtra, (S) AIR 1957 SC 264 . In the former case, it was held by the Supreme Court that a master is one who not only prescribes to the workman the end of his work, but directs or at any moment may direct the means also, or, as it has been put, "retains the power of controlling the work". A servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work. If a master employs a servant and authorises him to employ d number of persons to do a particular job and to guarantee their fidelity and efficiency Tor a cash consideration, the employees thus appointed by the servant would be equally, with the employer, servants of the master. It is not always correct to say that persons appointed and liable to be dismissed by an independent contractor can in no circumstances be the employees of the third party. The question as to whose employee a particular person was has to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. It is not always correct to say that persons appointed and liable to be dismissed by an independent contractor can in no circumstances be the employees of the third party. The question as to whose employee a particular person was has to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of each individual case. In the latter case, it was pointed out that the broad distinction between a workman and independent contractor lies in this that while the former agrees himself to work, the latter agrees to get other persons to work. A person who agrees himself to work and does so work and is therefore a workman does not cease to be such by reason merely of the fact that he gets other persons to work along with him and that those persons are controlled and paid by him. What determines whether a person is a workman or an independent contractor is whether he has agreed to worn personally or not. If he has, then he is a workman and the fact that he takes assistance from other persons would not affect his status. In our opinion, these two decisions have no material bearing on the question presented for determination in the present case. It is manifest, that the question arising in the present case is not whether the petitioner himself is a workman under the employment of respondent No. 3. On the contrary, the Question for decision is whether the petitioner is an employer vis-a-vis Arjun Nunta, respondent No. 2. For the reasons we have already expressed, we hold that on the facts found in this case the Tribunal has reached the correct conclusion that the petitioner was an employer vis-a-vis Arjun Nunia, respondent No. 2 and the reference made by the Central Government under Sec.10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not incompetent. 5. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal ought not to have ordered the petitioner to pay compensation to respondent No. 2 from 1st July, 1959 up to the date of his reinstatement. It was argued that the liability for payment of compensation should be thrown upon respondent No. 3 who was the principal employer. We are unable to accept this argument as right. It was argued that the liability for payment of compensation should be thrown upon respondent No. 3 who was the principal employer. We are unable to accept this argument as right. As we have already stated, the petitioner is paid by respondent No. 3 under a contract, a fixed amount at the rate of 30 nP. per tub of coal trammed at the surface along with a commission of 3 nP. per tub. It is also manifest that under the contract the petitioner is responsible for employment of workmen to carry out the contract. The payment of wages for these workmen is made by the petitioner out of the amount he receives from respondent No. 3. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that the Tribunal was right in ordering that compensation to respondent No. 2 from 1st of July, 1959, up to the date of reinstatement at the rate of half thr wages should be paid by the petitioner and the liability should not be thrown upon respondent No. 3. 6. For these reasons we hold that the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, dated the 25th May, 1960 in Reference case No. 6 of 1960 is not vitiated by any error of law and there is no ground made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. We accordingly dismiss this applica tion, but there will be no order as to costs.