Judgment Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. 1. The petitioners in this case have challenged the decision given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhagalpur, in a reference case under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, a copy whereof is annexure 1 to the writ application. The petitioner no.2 claims to be a workman under M/s Tridip and Company Gun Factory, Monghyr, respondent no.2, and the petitioner no.1 is the Labour Union. 2. It has been stated in the writ application that guns have been manufactured in the town of Monghyr for a long time and after establishment of the british rule, the business was organised specially by way of security measures. The Government provided the old jail campus in the town as the place for manufacture of guns and 35 factories were given space therefore that purpose. The entry inside the factory is regulated by gate pass issued by the police authorities which every workman has to take. The gate of the campus leading to the factory opens and closes at appointed hours during the day for security reasons by officers who are authorised to check the entry and exit of all persons including the workmen. The workmen who are employed in the factories get their wages on piece rate. Earlier they were disorganised, but have now formed a labour Union, the petitioner no.1. As the petitioner no.2 became the active member of the Union, the Management male fide dismissed him. The Union cook up the case and ultimately the following dispute was referred under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the State Government : Whether the dismissal of Sri Narain Sharma by M/s Tridip and Co. Gun Factory, Monghyr is justified If not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement or any compensation ?" 3. The Management denied the relationship of employer and employee within the mining of the Act between itself and the workman, petitioner no.2. It was said that the workers engaged in gun manufacturing inside the old jail campus in Monghyr town are skilled artisan and technicians who obtained independent contracts for preparing specific parts of gun from different companies functioning in the campus and none of the managements of the manufacturing companies has any control over them. The workers are, in fact, independent contractors and the Industrial Disputes Act his no application whatsoever. The workers are, in fact, independent contractors and the Industrial Disputes Act his no application whatsoever. The reference itself has been, on these grounds assailed. The allegations made on behalf of petitioner no.2 in regard to the fasts in support of his case of mala fide were also denied. 4. Tne parties led evidence and the Labour Court held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the responds it no.2 and the petitioner no.2 and the latter is not a workman within the meaning of the expression under the Act and no relief, therefore, could be granted. The reference was accordingly answered. The Union and the worker nave impugned the decision by the present application under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of india. 5. Mr Balbhadra Singh, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the decision of the Labour Court is illegal and the petitioner no.2 must be held to be a working within the meaning of the Act. He placed great reliance on the application of the Management dated 28-12-1967 (Annexure 2) for registration under tne Factories Act, report of inspection of the respondent-company dated 11-9-1968 (Annexure 3) by the Inspector of Factories, to the respondent no.2, the letter of the Inspector of Factories, (Annexure 3-A) issuad in February 1970, the report (Annexure 3-B) dated 24-5-1969 of inspection of the company by the Inspector of Factories, and argued that they clearly proved that the factory in question is covered by the Factories Act. Mr. Rajen Roy, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, argued that the Factories Act also does not apply in this case and a mistake on the part of the Factory Inspector or the respondent no.2 cannot affect tne position. Proceeding further, Mr. Balbhadra singh placed great reliance on the decision in Dharangadhra Chemical Works ltd. V/s. State of Saurashtra (AIR.1957 Suprems Court, 251) and D. C. Dewai mohideen Sahib and. Sons V/s. United Bill Workers Union (AIR 1966 Supreme court 370), aad urged that applying the test as indicates in the decision in chandrabali V/s. Mining Engineer (AIR 1965 Patna, 19), the factory in question must be held to be an industry and the petitioner no, 2 a workman within the act. Both the learned counsel referred to the different findings of fact recorded by the Laoour Court in detail. Mr. Both the learned counsel referred to the different findings of fact recorded by the Laoour Court in detail. Mr. Roy submitted that in the circumstances, the view of the Labour Court must be upheld and, in any event, event if the high Court does not agree with the conclusion drawn by the respondent no.1, it has no jurisdiction to interface with the sime in its limited writ jurisdiction. 6. The learned counsel for the parties placed in detail several decisions of the Supreme Court, but it appears that the decision in Dharangadhra Chemical works Ltd. V/s. State of Saurathtra (AIR 1957 Supreme Court 245) has been holding the field and has been considered and followed in latter decisions. It was held in that case as follows : "the prima facie test for the determination of the relationship between master and servant is the existence of the right in the master to supervise and control the work done by servant not only in the matter of directing what work the servant is to do but also the manner in which he shall do his work". It was further observed that "the nature and extent of control which is requisite to establish the relationship of employer and employee must necessarily very from business to business and is by its very nature incapable of precise-definition. " in paragraph 19 of the judgment, the Supreme Court proceeded to say "chat the question whether relationship between the parties is one as between employer and employee or between master and servant is a pure question of fact". This test has been accepted by other decisions as the main test, although other facts have also been held relevant. 7. Coming to the facts of the present case, it appears that guns have been manufactured in Monghyr town for a long time, since before the town came under the control of the East India Company during the British rule. It was realised that if the gun manufacturing business was permitted to be carried on as before, large scale of clandestine arms might fall in undesirable hands and, therefore, all the manufactures were confined within a protected area and space was allotted to different manufacturers. A control was imposed so as to check smuggling of arms and permits were issued to persons connected with the works. A control was imposed so as to check smuggling of arms and permits were issued to persons connected with the works. Altogether 36 gun manufacturers are at the moment engaged in their business, and are employing skilled hands. Oa a consideration of the evidence led before it, the Labour Court has recorded the following findings of facts : (i) The manufacture of guns at Monghyr is mostly the result of skilled manual craftsmanship and not much of machinery is used. The industry has retained its original character of a Cottage Industry in most respects ; (ii) The workers undertake to complete specific works on contract of more than one manufacturer and are paid on piece rate. The space allotted to a particular gun manufacturer is very limited in area and the workmen cannot execute their work in such area ; (iii) There is no uniform or systematic payment of wages to the workers. The charges are fixed by different employers on negotiated fixed labour charges on piece rated basis ; (iv) The payments are made as and when they are convenient to both sides ; (v) There are no hours of work, but according to the control exercised by the Government, the work must be executed within the protected area and during day time. (vi) The workmen are not under any limitation from accepting work from a particular gun manufacturer they like. They are not exclusively under the employment of one manufacturer and they are free to and actually do accept work from different manufacturers ; (vii) The workmen besides using some of the machineries belonging to the manufacturer utilize some implements belonging to them ; (viii) If the work is not executed properly, the manufacturer has a right to reject the same and not to make payment ; (ix) The persons who provide employment to them had no control over them except that they get specific parts prepared by particular workmen. 8. It appears established that a workman cannot be characterised as a contractor not covered by the definition of the term "workmen" under the industrial Disputes Act only for the reasons that he is being paid at the piece rated basis, nor for the reason that the hours and work are not fixed. 8. It appears established that a workman cannot be characterised as a contractor not covered by the definition of the term "workmen" under the industrial Disputes Act only for the reasons that he is being paid at the piece rated basis, nor for the reason that the hours and work are not fixed. However, the main question as to whether the workmen are under due control and supervision by the employer has been decided, as a question of fact, by the Labour court against the petitioner. The other facts, as stated above, also support the respondents case as far as they are relevant. I do not find in this case any fact found by the Tribunal which may lead to a different conclusion. The findings of fact found by the Labour Court are binding and parties have rightly not challenged them before us. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that on such findings, the Tribunal should have come to a different conclusion in regard to the capacity of the workmen. I do not find any merit in the contention and the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court appears to be consistent with the principles laid down in the decisions including the decision in Shanker balaji V/s. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 Supreme Court 517 ). 9. The writ application must, therefore, be dismissed, but I would make no order as to costs. Application dismissed.