Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, C.J. Patel Tobacco Products Co. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, challenged an order passed by the respondent No.3, the Appellate Authority under the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966. The appellate authority had allowed an application under Section 31 of the Act filed by respondent No.1, Rajkumar Tukaram Janbandhu, directing the petitioner to supply tobacco and leaves to respondent No.1, pay wages, and reinstate him with continuity and back wages. The petitioner claimed it was engaged only in the sale of beedis and not in any manufacturing process as defined under Section 2(k) of the Act. The respondent No.1 had approached the appellate authority for redressal of his grievances, and it was his burden to establish that the petitioner was engaged in manufacturing process. The appellate authority, by reading the definition of 'manufacturing process' along with definitions of 'employee', 'establishment', and 'industrial premises', held that sale of beedis is also covered by the definition of 'manufacturing process'. The High Court, in its analysis, noted that the respondent No.1 failed to discharge the burden of proof. The court observed that the appellate authority's reasoning was flawed and that the sale of beedis alone does not constitute a manufacturing process under the Act. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and held that the provisions of the Act of 1966 were not applicable to the petitioner. The court did not award any costs.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Beedi and Cigar Workers Act - Definition of Manufacturing Process - Section 2(k) of Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 - The court considered whether sale of beedis falls within the definition of 'manufacturing process' under Section 2(k) of the Act. The appellate authority had held that sale of beedis is covered by the definition. The High Court quashed the order, holding that the employee failed to establish that the employer was engaged in manufacturing process. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the provisions of the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 are applicable to an establishment engaged only in the sale of beedis and not in the manufacturing process.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Impugned order dated 17-3-2009 passed by respondent No.3 is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Definition of manufacturing process under Section 2(k) of Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act
- 1966
- Burden of proof on employee to establish employer is engaged in manufacturing process
- Sale of beedis alone does not constitute manufacturing process
