Appeal by certiorari, taken by the Visayan Stevedoring Transportation Co. hereinafter re­ferred to as the Company and Rafael Xaudaro, from an order of the Court of Industrial Relations, the dispositive part of which reads:

"The Court, finding respondents guilty of un­fair labor practice as charged, directs them to cease and desist from such unfair labor practice and to re­instate the complainants, with back wages from the date they were laid off until reinstated."

The Company is engaged in the loading and unloading of vessels, with a branch office in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, under the manage­ment of said Rafael Xaudaro.  Its workers are supplied by the United Workers and Farmers Association, a labor organization hereinafter referred to as UWFA whose men (affiliated to various labor unions) have regularly worked as laborers of the Company during every milling season since immediately after World War II up to the milling season immediately preceding November 11, 1955, when the Company refused to engage the services of Venancio Dano-og, Buenaventura Agarcio and 137 other persons named in the complaint filed in case No. 62-ULP-Cebu of the Court of Industrial Relations   and hereinafter referred to as the Complainants owing, they claim, to their union activities.  At the be­hest of the UWFA and the Complainants, a complaint for unfair labor practice was, accordingly, filed against the Company and Xaudaro with the Court of Industrial Relations hereinafter referred to as the CIR in which it was docketed as Case No. 62-ULP-Cebu.  In due course, its Presiding Judge issued the order appealed from, which was affirmed by the CIR sitting en banc.  Hence this petition for review by certiorari.

The issues raised in this appeal, are (1) whether there is employer-employee relationship between the Company and the Com­plainants; (2) whether the Company has been guilty of unfair labor practice; and (3) whether the order of reinstatement of Complainants, with backpay, is a reversible error.

With respect to the first question, the Company maintains that it had never had an employer-employee relationship with the Complainants, the latter's services having allegedly been engaged by the UWFA, not by the Company, and that, in any event, whatever contractual relation there may have been between the Company and the Complainants had ceased at the end of each milling season, so that the Company can not be guilty of unfair labor practice in refusing to renew said relation at the beginning of the milling season in November, 1955.

This pretense is untenable.  Although Complainants, through the labor union to which they belong, form part of UWFA, there was no in­dependent contract between the latter, as an organization, and the Com­pany.  After the first milling season subsequently to the liberation of the Philippines, Complainants merely reported for work, at the beginning of each succeeding milling season, and their services were invariably avail­ed of by the Company, although an officer of the UWFA or union concern­ed determined the laborers who would work at a given time, following a rotation system arranged therefor.

In the performance of their duties, Complainants worked, however, under the direction and control of the officers of the Company, whose paymaster, or disbursing officer paid the corresponding compen­sation directly to said Complainants, who, in turn, acknowledged receipt in payrolls of the Company.  We have already held that laborers working under these conditions are employees of the Company,^[1] in the same manner as watchmen or security guards furnished, under similar circumstances, by watchmen or security agencies,^[2] inasmuch as the agencies and/or labor organizations involved therein merely performed the role of a representative or agent of the employer in the recruitment of men needed for the operation of the latter's business.^[3]

As regards the alleged termination of employer-employee relationship between the Company and the Complainants at the conclusion of each milling season, it is, likewise, settled that the workers concerned are considered, not separated from the service, but, merely on leave of absence, without pay, during the off-season, their employer-employee relationship being merely deemed suspended, not severed, in the mean­while.^[4]

Referring to the unfair labor practice charge against the Company, we find, with the CIR, that said charge is substantially borne out by the evidence of record, it appearing that the workers not admitted to work beginning from November, 1955, were precisely those belonging to the UWFA, and that Xaudaro, the Company branch Manager, had told them point blank that severance of their connection with the UWFA was the remedy, if they wanted to continue working with the Company.

As to the payment of back wages, the law^[5] explicitly vests in the CIR discretion to order the reinstatement with back pay of laborers dismissed due to union activities, and the record does not disclose any cogent reason to warrant interference with the action taken by said Court.^[6]

WHEREFORE, the order and resolution appealed from are hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioners herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanches, and Castro, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] ICAWO v. CIR, G.R. No. L-21465 (March 31, 1966); Manila Hotel Co. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-18873 (September 30, 1963).

^[2] Velez v. PAV Watchmen's Union, G.R. No. L-12639, April 27, 1960; U.S. Lines v. Associated Watchmen & Security Union, G.R. No. L-12208-11, May 21, 1958.

^[3] Madrigal Shipping Co. v. WCC, G.R. No. L-17495, June 29, 1962; Asia Steel Corp. v. WCC, G.R. No. L-7636, June 27, 1955; Mansal v. Go­checo Lumber Co., G.R. No. L-8017, April 30, 1955; Flores v. Compañia Maritima, 57 Phil., 905, 908.

^[4] Manila Hotel Co. v. CIR, supra; ICAWO v. CIR, supra.

^[5] "x x x If, after investigation, the Court shall be of the opinion that any person named in the complaint has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair labor practice, then the Court shall state its findings of fact and shall issue and cause to be served on such person an order requiring such person to cease and desist from such unfair labor practice and take such affirmative action as will effectuate the policies of this Act, including (but not limited to) reinstatement of employees with or without back pay and including rights of the employees prior to dismissal including seniority x x x."

^[6] Compañia Maritima v. United Seaman's Union of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-9923, June 20, 1958; Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. v. CIR, G.R. No. L-10423, January 20, 1960; Caño v. CIR, G.R. No. L-15594, October 31, 1960; Henares Sons v. National Labor Union, G.R. No. L-17535, December 28, 1960; Allied Workers Association of the Philippines (AWA) San Carlos Chapter v. Phil­ippine Land Sea Air Labor Union (PLASLU) et al. G.R. No. L-15447-8, January 31, 1962; MP Transit & Taxi Co., Inc. v. De Guzman, G.R. No. L-18810, April 23, 1963; and Big Five Products Workers Union v. CIR, G.R. No. L-17600, July 31, 1963.