1952 (8) TMI 30 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the studio in which films are produced qualifies as a "factory" under the Factories Act.
2. Whether the persons employed in the studio are "workers" as defined in the Factories Act.
3. Whether the activities carried out in the studio constitute a "manufacturing process" under the Factories Act.
4. Whether the compensation received by the employees can be classified as "wages" under the Factories Act.
5. Whether the various departments within the studio can be considered separate entities for the purpose of the Factories Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the studio in which films are produced qualifies as a "factory" under the Factories Act:

The appellant contended that only the departments related to carpentry, moulding, and tinkering should be considered a "factory" under the Factories Act, as these departments were housed in a separate building where all requirements of the Act had been met. The prosecution argued that the entire studio should be considered a factory. The court examined the definition of "factory" under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, which includes any premises where ten or more workers are working and a manufacturing process is carried on with the aid of power. The court concluded that the studio could be considered a factory if the activities carried out there constituted a manufacturing process.

2. Whether the persons employed in the studio are "workers" as defined in the Factories Act:

The definition of "worker" under Section 2(l) of the Factories Act includes persons employed in any manufacturing process or in any work incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process. The court noted that the employees in various departments, such as creative, administrative, technical, and directorial, were engaged in activities related to film production. The court held that these employees could be considered workers if their activities constituted a manufacturing process and if they were receiving wages.

3. Whether the activities carried out in the studio constitute a "manufacturing process" under the Factories Act:

The court examined the definition of "manufacturing process" under Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, which includes any process for making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, or otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view to its use. The court observed that the conversion of raw film into a finished product involved treating or adapting the film with a view to its use for exhibition. The court concluded that the activities carried out in the studio constituted a manufacturing process under the Act.

4. Whether the compensation received by the employees can be classified as "wages" under the Factories Act:

The court discussed the distinction between "wages" and "salary," noting that "wages" generally refer to compensation for manual or physical labor, while "salary" is used for payment for services of a higher class. The court held that if the remuneration was paid daily or weekly, it could be considered wages, but if it was paid monthly and was a significant amount, it should be considered a salary. The court determined that further evidence was needed to ascertain whether the employees were receiving wages or salaries.

5. Whether the various departments within the studio can be considered separate entities for the purpose of the Factories Act:

The court considered whether the different departments within the studio could be treated as separate entities for the application of the Factories Act. The court noted that if ten or more workers were employed in any department, that department could be considered a factory. The court also observed that it was possible to separate the carpentry, moulding, and tinkering departments from the others. The court concluded that further evidence was needed to determine whether the various departments could be considered separate entities and whether they employed the requisite number of workers.

Conclusion:

The court set aside the convictions and sentences and directed a retrial to determine whether the persons employed in the various departments were workers as defined in the Act and whether the departments could be considered separate entities. The court held that in respect of those departments where the provisions of the Factories Act were not applicable, there would be no retrial, and the order of the lower court would stand.