The term `employment’ used in Article 319 of the Constitution fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Har Govind Pant’s case (supra). The observations made in para 74, 75, relevant part of 76, 89 and 91, read as under:-
“74. Now the term ’employment’ postulates relationship of master and servant or subordination of the employee to the master. Seemingly the term ‘Employment’ occurring in Article 319 is of wider amplitude and of general import. It has to be construed in the light of general purpose and context and setting in which it finds place in the Constitution. The question whether conditions of employment can be regarded falling within the relationship of master and servant is whether the alleged employee is under the control and bound to obey the directions of the alleged master. In Yewons v. Nokos, (1880) 6 QBD 330, Bramwell J. denned a servant as one who is subject to the command of his master, as to the manner in which he should do his work. See also Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Volume 25, Page 447, wherein it has been observed that the relationship of master and servant imports the existence of power in the employer not only to direct what the servant is to do but also the manner in which the work is to be done.
This dictum has also received the approval of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sankalchand Himatmal Sheth, (reported in AIR 1977 SC 2328). In that case Hon’ble Chandrachud J. has observed (at pp. 2344-45);
“In general relationship of master and servant imports the existence of power in the employer not only to direct what work the servant is to do but also the manner in which the work is to be done.”
