9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Sattedars and their coolies are "workers" within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948. 2. Whether the appellants contravened Sections 62 and 63 of the Factories Act, 1948. 3. Whether the appellants are liable for penalties under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the Sattedars and their coolies are "workers" within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948: The Factories Act defines a "worker" as a person employed, directly or through any agency, whether for wages or not, in any manufacturing process. The appellants contended that the Sattedars are independent contractors who undertake specific jobs without submitting to the control of the factory management. The Sattedars either manufacture bidis in their own small factories or distribute tobacco to third parties for bidi making. The management only pays for the bidis delivered and does not control the manufacturing process. The coolies employed by the Sattedars are paid by the Sattedars and not by the factory management. The court observed that the concept of employment involves three ingredients: employer, employee, and contract of employment, which includes control and supervision by the employer over the employee. The court concluded that the Sattedars were independent contractors and not workers under the Act because they were not under the control and supervision of the factory management. Similarly, the coolies employed by the Sattedars were not workers within the meaning of the Act as there was no privity of contract between them and the factory management. 2. Whether the appellants contravened Sections 62 and 63 of the Factories Act, 1948: Section 62 requires the manager of a factory to maintain a register of adult workers with prescribed particulars. Section 63 mandates that no adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in any factory without prior entries in the register of adult workers. The prosecution argued that the appellants violated these provisions by not maintaining the register and allowing the Sattedars and their coolies to work in the factory without making the necessary entries. However, the court held that since the Sattedars and their coolies were not "workers" under the Act, the appellants did not contravene Sections 62 and 63. 3. Whether the appellants are liable for penalties under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948: Section 92 provides penalties for contraventions of the Act. Given that the court determined that the Sattedars and their coolies were not workers under the Act, the appellants did not violate Sections 62 and 63. Consequently, the appellants were not liable for penalties under Section 92. The court emphasized that the determination of whether a person is a worker depends on the specific terms of the contract between the individual and the employer. In this case, the prosecution failed to establish that the Sattedars were employed by the factory management. Conclusion: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions under Section 92 of the Factories Act, and ordered the refund of fines paid by the appellants. The decision was confined to the facts of this case, and the court did not establish a general proposition regarding the status of Sattedars under the Act.
|
