JUDGMENT : Anand Sharma, J. 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 24.02.2022 passed by Labour Court, Kota in LCR No. 49/2011 (CIS No. 966/2014), whereby reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman and his claim has been rejected. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially engaged in the year 2007 as labour in respondent-Corporation pursuant to order dated 15.10.2007. It has been contended by the petitioner in memo of writ petition that he was discharging his duties on ‘Piece Rate Basis’ from the date of appointment, however, without issuing any notice and in non-compliance of provision of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’), his services were terminated. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner raised the Industrial Dispute, which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court vide Notification dated 08.08.2011. The terms of reference were as to whether there was any relationship of workman and employer between the petitioner and RSRTC or not and if 'Yes' as to whether terminating the petitioner a ‘piece rated worker’ from services w.e.f. 12.11.2008 was valid or not; and if not for which relief the workman was entitled to. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by holding that the petitioner was a ‘piece rated worker’ hence does not come within the definition of workman prescribed under Section 25F, the Labour Court has committed serious error and jurisdiction of law. Counsel would also submit that Labour Court has also erred in holding that the petitioner could not establish relationship of workman and employer between the petitioner and respondent corporations, hence, on the basis of such erroneous finding the petitioner has wrongly been non-suited. Hence, he prayed for quashing the award dated 24.02.2022. 4. Counsel would also submit that Labour Court has also erred in holding that the petitioner could not establish relationship of workman and employer between the petitioner and respondent corporations, hence, on the basis of such erroneous finding the petitioner has wrongly been non-suited. Hence, he prayed for quashing the award dated 24.02.2022. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in order to claim any relief whatsoever under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, an incumbent is required to firstly fall within the category of 'workman', so as to establish relationship of workman and employer between the petitioner and respondent, however, in the instant case, the petitioner has utterly failed to place sufficient material on record so as to fulfilling the requirement of a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 and thereby failed to establish relationship of workman and employer between the petitioner and respondent, therefore, the Labour Court has committed no mistake whatsoever in answering the reference against the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed for rejecting the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the case of H.M. Khatri & Co. Vs. Their Workmen reported in (1960) llLLJ 605 BOM , whereas learned counsel for the respondent has cited the judgments in support of their cases in the cases of Workers of Sagar Talkies (South India...Vs Odeon Cinema And Ors. reported in (1957) lLLJ 639 MAD and Automobile Assoc. Upper India vs The P.O. Labour Court li And Anr. reported in 130 (2006) DLT 160 . 6. I have heard the rival submissions put-forward by learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record. 7. reported in (1957) lLLJ 639 MAD and Automobile Assoc. Upper India vs The P.O. Labour Court li And Anr. reported in 130 (2006) DLT 160 . 6. I have heard the rival submissions put-forward by learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record. 7. It would be relevant to refer that workman has been defined under Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act in following manner:- "(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person- (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." 8. While discussing the issue as to whether the petitioner comes within the purview of workman or not, learned Labour Court has considered that the petitioner has been doing the work under the instructions and control of respondent-Corporation of Job Basis and Piece Rated Basis. Contents of appointment order dated 15.10.2007 have also been considered by the Tribunal, however, learned Tribunal has recorded that petitioner cannot be treated as workman because his appointment cannot be said to be against any permanent or temporary post. 9. The findings given by the learned Tribunal have been examined in the light of definition of workman contemplated under the Act of 1947. 9. The findings given by the learned Tribunal have been examined in the light of definition of workman contemplated under the Act of 1947. As per the definition, nature of employment is not required to be either permanent or temporary, nor does it require that mode of payment of wages/remuneration should be on monthly basis, weekly basis, daily basis or even on Piece Rated Basis. As per the Act, it is required that the person including an apprentice should be employed in an industry to do any manual unskilled, skilled, technical, operational etc. work for hire or reward and whether the terms of employment be expressed or employed. In all such conditions, the person employed shall be considered as workman. 10. In the instant case, the respondent-Corporation has not denied that the Corporation hired the petitioner for work of 'Kamani repair', which is admittedly work of manual and technical nature. Merely on account of fact that the ‘reward’ for such work was being given on ‘Piece Rate Basis’ in itself would not oust the petitioner from the definition of workman. Moreso, when the petitioner was employed pursuant to order dated 09.05.2007 and 15.10.2007 issued by the respondent corporation itself. It has also not been denied that the petitioner was also required to work under the instructions and control of the respondent-Corporation. Hence, in view of evidence which has come on record, it is clear that the petitioner is fulfilling requirements of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947, and therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner was not a workman. 11. In the case of Silver Jubilee Tailoring House And Others vs. Chief Inspector Of Shops And Establishments And Another reported in 1974(3) SCC 498 , it has been held as under:- "26. It is in its application to skilled and particularly professional work that control test in its traditional form has really broken down. It has been said that in interpreting 'Control' as meaning the power to direct how the servant should do his work, the Court has been applying a concept suited to a past age. It is in its application to skilled and particularly professional work that control test in its traditional form has really broken down. It has been said that in interpreting 'Control' as meaning the power to direct how the servant should do his work, the Court has been applying a concept suited to a past age. This distinction (viz., between telling a servant what to do and telling him how to do it) was based upon the social conditions of an earlier age; it assumed that the employer of labour was able to direct and instruct the labourer as to the technical methods he should use in performing his work. In a mainly agricultural society and even in the earlier stages of the Industrial Revolution the master could be expected to be superior to the servant in the knowledge, skill and experience which had to be brought to bear upon the choice and handling of the tools. The control test was well suited to govern relationships like those between a farmer and an agricultural labourer (prior to agricultural mechanization) a craftsman and a journeyman, a householder and a domestic servant, and even a factory owner and an unskilled 'hand'. It reflects a state of society in which the ownership of the means of production coincided with the profession of technical knowledge and skill in which that knowledge and skill was largely acquired by being handed down from one generation to the next by oral tradition and not by being systematically imparted in institutions of learning from universities down to technical schools. The control test postulates a combination of managerial and technical functions in the person of the employer, i.e. what to modern eyes appears as an imperfect division of labour. 27. It is, therefore, not surprising that in recent years the control test as traditionally formulated has not been treated as an exclusive test. 28. It is exceedingly doubtful today whether the search for a formula in the nature of a single test to tell a contract of service from a contract for service will serve any useful purpose. The most that profitably can be done is to examine all the factors that have been referred to in the cases on the topic. Clearly, not all of these factors would be relevant in all these cases or have the same weight in all cases. The most that profitably can be done is to examine all the factors that have been referred to in the cases on the topic. Clearly, not all of these factors would be relevant in all these cases or have the same weight in all cases. It is equally clear that no magic formula can be propounded which factors should in any case be treated as determining ones. The plain fact is that in a large number of cases, the court can only perform a balancing operation weighing up the factors which point in one direction and balancing them against those pointing in the opposite direction. 29. During the last two decades the emphasis in the field has shifted and no longer rests so strongly upon the question of control. Control is obviously an important factor and in many cases it may still be the decisive factor. But it is wrong to say that in every case it is decisive. It is now no more than a factor, although an important one. 30. The fact that generally the workers attend the shop which belongs to the employer and work there, on the machines, also belonging to him, is a relevant factor. When the services are performed generally in the employer's premises, this is some indication that the contract is a contract of service. It is possible that this is another facet of the incidental feature of employment. This is the sort of situation in which a court may well feel inclined to apply the "organisation" test suggested by Denning, L.J. in Stevenson Jordan and Harrison v. Macdonal and Evans. 31. The further fact that "a worker can be removed" which means nothing more than that the employer has the liberty not to give further work to an employee who has not performed his job according to the instructions of the employer, or who has been absent from the shop for a long time as spoken to by the Inspector of Labour in his evidence, would be speak of control and supervision consistent with the character of the business. 32. That the workers work on the machines supplied by the proprietor of the shop is an important consideration in determining the nature of the relationship. 32. That the workers work on the machines supplied by the proprietor of the shop is an important consideration in determining the nature of the relationship. If the employer provides the equipment, this is some indication that the contract is a contract of service, whereas if the other party provides the equipment, this is some evidence that he is an independent contractor. It seems that this is not based on the theory that if the employer provides the equipment he retains some greater degree of control, for, as already seen, where the control arises only from the need to protect one's own property, little significance can attach to the power of control for this purpose. It seems, therefore, that the importance of the provision of equipment lies in the simple fact hat, in most circumstances, where a person hires out a piece of work to an independent contractor, he expects the contractor to provide all the necessary tools and equipment, whereas if he employs a servant he expects to provide them himself. It follows from this that no sensible inference can be drawn from this factor in circumstances where it is customary for servants to provide their own equipment. 34. Quite apart from all these circumstances, as the employer has the right to reject the end product if it does not conform to the instruction of the employer and direct the worker to restitch it, the element of control and supervision as formulated in the decisions of this Court is also present. 36. The reputation of a tailoring establishment depends not only on the cutter but also upon the tailors. In a many cases, stitching is a delicate operation when the cloth upon which it is to be carried on is expensive. The defect in stitching might mar the appearance not only of the garment but also of its wearer. So when the tailor returns a garment, the proprietor has got to inspect it to see that it is perfect. He has to keep his customers pleased and he has also to be punctual, which means that the stitching must be done according to the instruction of the employer and within the time specified. The degree of control and supervision would be different in different types of business. He has to keep his customers pleased and he has also to be punctual, which means that the stitching must be done according to the instruction of the employer and within the time specified. The degree of control and supervision would be different in different types of business. If an ultimate authority over the worker in the performance of his work resided in the employer so that he was subject to the latter's direction, that would be sufficient. In Humberstone v. Norther Timber Mills [1947] 79 Cri.L.R. 389, Dixon, J. said : "The question is not whether in practice the work was in fact done subject to a direction and control exercised by an actual supervision or whether an actual supervision was possible but whether ultimate authority over the man in the performance of his work resided in the employer so that he was subject to the latter's order and directions." 12. Similarly, in the case of Shining Tailors Vs. Industrial Tribunal II, U. P., Lucknow and Ors. reported in 1983(4) SCC 464 , it has been held by Hon’ble Ape Court as under:- "5. We have gone through the record and especially the evidence recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has committed a glaring error apparent on record that whenever payment is made by piece rate, there is no relationship of master and the servant and that such relationship can only be as between principal and principal and therefore, the respondents were independent contractors. Frankly, we must say that the Tribunal has not clearly grasped the meaning of what is the piece rate, If every piece rated workmen is an independent contractor, lakhs and lakhs of workmen in various industries where payment is correlated to production would be carved out of the expression 'workmen' as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. In the past the test to determine the relationship of employer and the workmen was the test of control and not the method of payment. Piece rate payment meaning thereby payment correlated to production is a well-recognised mode of payment to industrial workmen. In fact, wherever possible that method of payment has to be encouraged so that there is utmost sincerity, efficiency and single minded devotion to increase production which would be beneficial both to the employer, the workmen and the nation at large. Piece rate payment meaning thereby payment correlated to production is a well-recognised mode of payment to industrial workmen. In fact, wherever possible that method of payment has to be encouraged so that there is utmost sincerity, efficiency and single minded devotion to increase production which would be beneficial both to the employer, the workmen and the nation at large. But the test employed in the past was one of determining the degree of control that the employer wielded over the workmen. However, in the identical situation in Silver Jubilee Tailoring House and Ors. v. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments and Anr. MANU/SC/0290/1973 : (1973)IILLJ495SC Methew, J. speaking for the Court observed that the control idea was more suited to the agricultural society prior to Industrial Revolution and during the last two decades the emphasis in the field is shifted from and no longer rests exclusively or strongly upon the question of control. It was further observed that a search for a formula in the nature of a single test will not serve the useful purpose, and all factors that have been referred to in the cases on topics, should be considered to tell a contract of service. Approaching the matter from this angle, the Court observed that the employer's right to reject the end product if it does not conform to the instructions of the employer speaks for the element of control and supervision. So also the right of removal of the workman or not to give the work has the element of control and supervision. If these aspects are considered decisive, they are amply satisfied in the facts of this case. The Tribunal ignored the well laid test in law and completely misdirected itself by showing that piece rate itself indicates a relationship of independent contractor and error apparent on the record disclosing a total lack of knowledge of the method of payment in various occupations in different industries. The right of rejection coupled with the right to refuse work would certainly establish master servant relationship and both these tests are amply satisfied in the facts of this case. Viewed from this angle, the respondents were the workmen of the employer and the preliminary objection therefore, raised on behalf of the appellant-employer was untenable and ought to have been overruled and we hereby overrule it." 13. Viewed from this angle, the respondents were the workmen of the employer and the preliminary objection therefore, raised on behalf of the appellant-employer was untenable and ought to have been overruled and we hereby overrule it." 13. In the light of above, where control of respondent even on ‘Piece Rated/Job basis rate work' conducted by the petitioner has not been denied and it has also not been disputed that quality of work was also subjected to satisfaction of the respondent- Corporation prior to make payment of Job Rated Work, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has fulfilled the requirement of the workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947. It is also relevant to mention here that at the relevant time, the State amendment by the Government of Rajasthan in Section 2(s) of I.D. Act, 1947 was also in force, which provides that even a person employed through contractor shall also be considered as 'workman' of the principal employer for the purposes of Industrial Disputes Act. 14. Thus, under these circumstances, it is held that the petitioner comes within the purview of 'workman' of respondent and there was a relationship of workman and employee between the petitioner and respondent. In the light of above, award dated 24.02.2022 passed by the Labour Court is hereby quashed and by remanding the matter, the Labour Court, Kota is directed to decide the reference afresh on merits by treating the petitioner to be 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947. 15. It is made clear that observation made hereinabove in this judgment is limited only for the purpose of examining the case of the petitioner in the light of definition of Section 2(s) and shall not prejudice case of either of the parties on merits. 16. Looking to the fact that the instant matter relates to termination of the petitioner in 2008, therefore, in the interest of justice, Labour Court, Kota is expected to decide the reference expeditiously. Parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court, Kota on 30.05.2025. 17. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition is allowed. 18. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.