Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the respondent under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 for using a building as a factory without obtaining previous permission of the Chief Inspector of Factories, failing to apply for registration and licence, failing to maintain a muster roll of workers, and failing to give attendance cards. The prosecution case was that the respondent operated premises where prawns were peeled, washed, and processed by local women and girls. The respondent was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20 in each case and directed under Section 102 to rectify the defects. The High Court of Kerala in revision held that the work carried on in the premises amounted to a manufacturing process, which was not disputed before the Supreme Court, but found that the women and girls doing the work were not 'workers' within Section 2(1) of the Factories Act. The evidence showed that as and when catches of prawns arrived, casual and irregular groups of women and girls from the locality came at their convenience to do peeling, washing, etc., at piece-rates. There were no specified hours of work, no control by the respondent over attendance or the nature, manner, or quantum of work, and the same workers would go to other similar premises after finishing. The High Court accordingly set aside the conviction. The State of Kerala appealed on certificates granted by the High Court under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. The appellant contended that the High Court erred in applying the test from Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, a case under the Industrial Disputes Act, to the definition of 'worker' under the Factories Act, and urged reference to a larger Bench. The respondent supported the High Court's application of settled principles. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision. It held that the control test adopted in Dharangadhara and followed in Chintaman Rao and Birdhichand Sharma correctly applied to the Factories Act. The scheme of the Act made it impossible to apply many provisions to workers of the type involved here if they were held to be workers. Observing that once the test for determining 'worker' had been settled by the Supreme Court, the High Court should have treated the question of principle as no longer open, and that applying a settled principle to specific facts did not make a question fit for appeal under Article 134(1)(c), the Court dismissed the appeals.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Definition of Worker - Casual Irregular Piece-Rate Workers Not Workers Without Control and Fixed Hours - Factories Act, 1948, Section 2(1) - The High Court found that women and girls who peeled prawns at piece-rates came at their convenience, had no specified hours, and were subject to no control by the respondent over attendance, manner, or quantum of work; they could work at similar premises. Applying the control test from Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. and Chintaman Rao, the Supreme Court held that these persons were not 'workers' within Section 2(1) of the Factories Act. Held that the High Court rightly decided that they were not covered (Paras 1-5). B) Constitutional Law - Appeal to Supreme Court - Certification Fit for Appeal Under Article 134(1)(c) - Constitution of India, Article 134(1)(c) - The High Court certified the case as fit for appeal on the ground of general importance in the State, but the Supreme Court observed that after it had settled the test for 'worker', the question of principle was no longer open, and mere application of a settled principle to facts does not make the question fit for appeal. Held that the appeals were dismissed despite the High Court's erroneous certification (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the workmen doing work in the premises of the respondent were workers within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948; and whether the High Court was justified in certifying the case as fit for appeal under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution after the principle had been settled by the Supreme Court
Final Decision
The appeals fail and are dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the women and girls doing casual piece-rate prawn peeling work were not 'workers' under Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948, and upheld the High Court's decision setting aside the respondent's conviction. The Court also observed that the High Court should not have certified the case as fit for appeal under Article 134(1)(c) after the principle had been settled.
Law Points
- Definition of worker under Section 2(1) of Factories Act
- 1948 requires employment and control by employer
- casual
- irregular
- piece-rate workers without specified hours or control are not workers
- control test laid down in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra applies to Factories Act
- application of settled principle to particular facts does not make a question fit for appeal under Article 134(1)(c) of Constitution
