Case Note & Summary
The appellants were the manager of a bidi factory operating under contracts with Sattedars, independent contractors who agreed to supply bidis manufactured in their own factories or through third parties. The Inspector of Factories discovered Sattedars and their coolies in the factory premises delivering bidis and initiated prosecution for violations of Sections 62 and 63 of the Factories Act, 1948, alleging failure to maintain the register of adult workers and allowing workers to work without attendance entries. The trial court convicted the appellants, and the Nagpur High Court dismissed the criminal revision upholding the conviction. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue was whether the Sattedars and their coolies fell within the definition of 'worker' under Section 2(1) of the Factories Act. The appellants argued that these persons were not workers because the factory management exercised no control or supervision over the manner of their work. The State contended that their presence and work in the factory made them workers. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the relationship and applied the control and supervision test laid down in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra. The Court noted that the Sattedars undertook to supply bidis at a fixed price after approval and delivery; they were free to manufacture wherever they chose, without the management's direction. The coolies were not employed directly by the management nor were they employed through the Sattedars by the management. Consequently, the Court held that the Sattedars and their coolies were not 'workers' within Section 2(1). Absence of their names in the register or entries regarding them did not constitute an offence under Section 92. The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Definition of Worker - Control and Supervision Test - Factories Act, 1948, Sections 2(1), 62, 63, 92 - The case involved a bidi factory manager prosecuted for failing to maintain a register of adult workers and allowing workers to work without entries. The court applied the test from Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra and held that the Sattedars were independent contractors, not workers, because the factory management lacked control and supervision over the manner of their work. The coolies were not employed by the management directly or through the Sattedars. Held that no offence was committed under Section 92 as the persons concerned were not workers under Section 2(1). (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sattedars and their coolies were 'workers' within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948, and consequently whether the appellants committed an offence under Section 92 for non-compliance with Sections 62 and 63.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants. Held that the Sattedars and their coolies were not 'workers' under Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948, and thus no offence was committed.
Law Points
- Test for determining worker is employer's control and supervision over manner of work
- independent contractors not workers if free to perform work without employer's control
- applicability of Section 2(1)
- 62
- 63
- 92 of Factories Act
- 1948 to Sattedars and coolies
