1959 (12) TMI 61 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term 'Commercial Establishment' under the United Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, 1947.
2. Determination of whether field workers employed by a sugar factory fall under the definition of 'Commercial Establishment' or 'Factory Workers.'
3. Application of the Factories Act, 1948 to field workers employed to guide, supervise, and control the growth and supply of sugarcane.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the term 'Commercial Establishment' under the United Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, 1947. The core issue is whether field workers employed by a sugar factory to guide, supervise, and control the growth and supply of sugarcane are considered employees of a 'Commercial Establishment' or 'Factory Workers.' The Magistrate initially held that the field workers were employees of a Commercial Establishment, while the High Court at Allahabad took a contrary view, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Act was enacted to regulate employment conditions in shops and commercial establishments. The definition of 'Commercial Establishment' under the Act includes clerical and other establishments of a factory not covered by the Factories Act, 1934. The Factories Act, 1948 defines a worker as a person employed in a manufacturing process or work connected with it within the factory premises. The judgment analyzes whether field workers guiding sugarcane growth are within the scope of the Factories Act, thereby exempting them from the Commercial Establishment definition.

The Supreme Court clarified that for the Factories Act to apply, workers must be employed within the factory premises or precincts. Since field workers guiding sugarcane growth are not directly connected to the manufacturing process within the factory, they do not fall under the Factories Act's purview. Consequently, they are deemed employees of a Commercial Establishment under the United Provinces Act, as they are not employed within the factory premises.

The High Court's error in considering the field workers as Factory Workers led to the acquittal of the respondents. The Supreme Court overturned the acquittal, restoring the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Magistrate. The respondents were entitled to costs as per the Court's previous order. Ultimately, the judgment clarified the distinction between Commercial Establishment employees and Factory Workers, emphasizing the importance of the workers' physical location concerning the manufacturing process for legal classification.