Page 53 - DCOM207_LABOUR_LAWS

Labour Laws

Notes In Ardeshir v Bombay State [Air 1962 SC 29] the process carried out in the salt works comes
within the definition of `manufacturing process’ in Section 2 (k) in as much as salt can be said to
have been manufactured from sea water by the process of treatment and adaptation of sea water
into salt.
In re K. V V Sharma [(1950) 1 LLJ 29] conversion of raw films into a finished product was held
to be a manufacturing process. Similarly in New Taj Mahal Cafe Ltd., Mangalore v. Inspector
of Factories, Mangalore, 1956 1 LLJ 273 the preparation of foodstuffs and other eatable in the
kitchen of a restaurant and use of a refrigerator for treating or adapting any article with a view to
its sale were also held to be manufacturing process.
3. Worker

Section 2 (1) of the Factories Act 1,948 defines a “worker” to mean:

A person employed, directly or through any agency (including a contractor) with or without
knowledge of principal employer, whether for remuneration or not, in any manufacturing
process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process
or in any other kind of work incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process, or the
subject of the manufacturing process but does not include any member of the armed forces of
the union.
Broadly speaking, therefore, worker is a person:
l z who is employed;

l z who is employed either directly or through any agency;
l z who is employed in any manufacturing process, or in clearing any part of the machinery
or premises used for a manufacturing process or in any other kind of work incidental to, or
connected with the manufacturing process or the subject of the manufacturing process.
If the aforesaid conditions are satisfied, then it is immaterial whether a person was employed for
remuneration or not.
In Chintaman Rao v State of Madhya Pradesh, [AIR 1958 All 44] the factory entered into contracts
with independent contractors known as sattedars. The sattedars were supplied tobacco by the
factories and, in some cases, bidi leaves also. The sattedars were neither bound to work in the
factory nor were they bound to prepare the bidis themselves but could get them prepared by
others. In fact they engaged coolies for rolling bidis and made payments to them. They used
to collect bidis from these coolies and take them to the factory where the bidis were sorted and
checked by the workers of the factory. The factory made payments to the sattedars for work of
rolling bidis. The Supreme Court gave the restricted meaning to words “directly or through any
agency” in Section 2(l) and held that (i) worker was a person employed by the management and
(ii) there must be a contract of service and a relationship of master and servant between them. On
the facts of the case the Supreme Court held that the sattedars were independent contractors and
they and the coolies engaged by them for rolling bidis were not workers.

Example: In State of Kerala v V M Patel, [1961(1) LLJ 549 (SC)] the Supreme Court held
that the work of garbling pepper by winnowing, cleaning, washing and drying in lime and laid
out to dry in a warehouse are manufacturing processes and therefore the persons employed in
these processes were workers within the meaning of Section 2(I) of the Act.

In Shankar Balaji Waje v. State of Maharashtra, [AIR 1957 SC 517] Pandurang was engaged
for rolling bidis. Although the hours of work were fixed but there was no obligation to attend
during those hours. There was freedom to come and go. There was neither faxed salary nor
actual supervision on the work. Payment was made on the quantum of work. The Supreme Court
held that such person were not workers because there was no control and the supervision over
pandurang.

48 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY