1969 (3) TMI 92 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the company's premises at Eluru constitute a factory.
2. Whether the workers on the premises are considered "workers" as defined in the law.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The main issue in this case revolves around determining whether the company's premises at Eluru qualify as a factory under the law. The definition of a factory under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act 1948 is crucial, requiring 20 or more workers engaged in a manufacturing process with power. The prosecution contended that manufacturing processes were indeed being carried out at the Eluru premises, supported by evidence of tobacco processing activities. The Court analyzed the processes involved, such as moistening, stripping, and packing of tobacco leaves, concluding that these activities constituted manufacturing processes as defined in the law. The Court also referenced previous cases to explain the broad scope of manufacturing processes.

Issue 2:
The second issue involves determining whether the workers on the premises qualify as "workers" under the law. The definition of a worker under Section 2(1) of the Act includes individuals employed directly or through an agency in a manufacturing process. The appellant argued that the workers were employed by independent contractors and not directly by the management. The Court examined the relationship between the workers and the management, emphasizing the indicators of a contract of service, such as the master's control over work methods and payment of wages. The Court referred to previous cases to explain the criteria for establishing a contract of service.

Conclusion:
The Court found that the company's premises at Eluru met the criteria to be classified as a factory, as manufacturing processes were being carried out. Additionally, the workers on the premises were considered "workers" under the law, as the prosecution provided evidence of their employment by the management. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that the premises constituted a factory and the appellant was liable for contravention of the Factories Act.