Case Note & Summary
The case concerned a constitutional challenge to Section 85 of the Factories Act, 1948, and a Maharashtra Government notification issued thereunder, which deemed bidi rollers as workers entitled to benefits under the Act. The first petitioner was a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and the second petitioner its director; the company maintained 23 establishments for manufacturing bidis across districts in Maharashtra. Bidi rollers attended these establishments to prepare bidis using materials supplied by the company, but were not bound by fixed hours, could come and go as convenient, and were paid per bidi according to a tariff. Historically, bidi rollers had received weekly holidays and wages in lieu of holidays, but after this Court's decision in Shankar Balaji Waje v. State of Maharashtra, which held that such rollers were not 'workers' under Section 2(1) of the Factories Act because there was no contract of service, owners denied these benefits, leading to grave unrest among more than 35,000 bidi rollers. The State of Maharashtra responded by issuing a notification under Section 85 of the Factories Act, declaring that all provisions of the Act would apply to specified places where bidi manufacturing was carried on, notwithstanding that persons working therein were not employed by the owner but worked with permission or agreement. The effect was to deem bidi rollers as workers and entitle them to statutory benefits. The petitioners challenged the validity of Section 85 and the notification under Article 32, arguing that they infringed fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They contended that Section 85 conferred unguided discretion on the State Government to extend provisions to selected establishments, resulting in discriminatory treatment, and that the imposition of obligations such as annual leave with wages under Section 79 constituted unreasonable restrictions on their right to carry on business. The Union of India and the State defended the provision as part of a comprehensive labour welfare legislation intended to protect workers from exploitation and occupational hazards. The Court rejected the petitioners' contentions. It held that Section 85 was not discriminatory because it laid down sufficient legislative policy and did not confer arbitrary power. The selection of only some establishments in the notification did not amount to discrimination, as the State could proceed gradually and in phases to extend the Act. The Court further held that the restrictions imposed by the Act, including the obligation to grant annual leave with wages, were reasonable and in the interest of the general public, and did not violate Article 19(1)(g). The Court explained that a deemed worker under the notification, who was paid only for work done and was not bound to attend at fixed times, would be entitled to annual leave with wages under Section 79 only if he fulfilled the working conditions applicable to regular workers, such as attending for the full prescribed duration and working for at least 240 days in a calendar year. The privilege of working for fewer hours did not deprive him of benefits if he met those conditions. Accordingly, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 85 and the notification and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality Before Law - Section 85 of Factories Act not discriminatory - Constitution of India, Article 14; Factories Act, 1948, Section 85 - Petitioners challenged Section 85 as conferring unguided discretion on State Government to extend provisions to selected establishments, violating Article 14. The Court held that the section lays down a policy and provides sufficient guidance, and does not by itself discriminate. The impugned notification selecting some establishments out of many is not invalid on ground of selective application because the State may proceed step by step and the classification is reasonable in the interest of labour welfare. Held that Section 85 does not infringe Article 14. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Trade and Business - Reasonable Restrictions under Article 19(1)(g) - Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(g); Factories Act, 1948, Sections 85 and 79 - The petitioners argued that Section 85 and the notification impose unreasonable restrictions on their right to carry on bidi manufacturing business. The Court reasoned that the Factories Act is protective labour legislation and restrictions imposing obligations like annual leave with wages are reasonable and in the interest of the general public. Held that the provisions do not amount to authorising unreasonable restrictions. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Labour Law - Deemed Workers - Scope of Section 85 Notification - Factories Act, 1948, Section 85 - Section 85 authorises State Government to apply all or any provisions of the Act to places where manufacturing process is carried on even if number of workers is less than threshold or workers are not employed under contract of service. The notification deeming bidi rollers as workers is within power and valid. Held that notification is not open to attack for selecting some establishments. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Labour Law - Annual Leave with Wages - Applicability to Deemed Workers - Factories Act, 1948, Sections 79, 61, 66(1), 71, 75, 80 - A deemed worker who is paid only for work done and not bound to attend fixed hours may claim annual leave with wages under Section 79 only if he fulfils the working conditions applicable to regular workers, i.e., attends for full duration of prescribed hours and works for 240 days or more in a calendar year. Privilege of working for less hours does not deprive him of benefits if he meets conditions. Held that deemed workers are entitled to annual leave with wages only on satisfying statutory conditions. (Paras Not mentioned) E) Statutory Interpretation - Definition of Worker - Section 2(1) of Factories Act - Factories Act, 1948, Section 2(1) - The Supreme Court in Shankar Balaji Waje held that bidi rollers with no fixed hours and no contract of service are not 'workers' within meaning of Section 2(1). After that, State issued notification under Section 85 to confer deemed worker status. The Court in this case did not disturb that interpretation but upheld the notification. Held that deeming provision can extend benefits to those not falling within definition. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 85 of the Factories Act, 1948 and the Maharashtra Government notification issued thereunder violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India by deeming bidi rollers as workers and extending benefits such as annual leave with wages.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 85 of the Factories Act, 1948 and the Maharashtra Government notification issued thereunder. The Court held that Section 85 is not discriminatory under Article 14 and does not authorise unreasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(g). The notification applying provisions to bidi establishments was valid. Deemed workers are entitled to annual leave with wages under Section 79 only if they fulfil the prescribed working conditions. The writ petition was dismissed.
Law Points
- Section 85 of Factories Act
- 1948 is constitutional and does not violate Article 14
- notification under Section 85 applying provisions to bidi establishments is valid
- deemed workers entitled to annual leave with wages only upon fulfilling prescribed working conditions
- Factories Act is protective labour legislation imposing reasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(g)
- selective application of Act to some establishments is not discriminatory.
