Page 12 - DMGT306_MERCANTILE_LAWS_II

Unit 1: The Factories Act, 1948

On the facts of the case the Supreme Court held that the sattedars were independent contractors Notes
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 fixed 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.

Example: In Birdh Chand Sharma v. First Civil Judge, Nagpur [AIR 1961 SC 644] where the
respondents prepared bidis at the factory and they were not at liberty to work at their homes.
They worked within certain hours which were the factory hours. They were, however, not
bound to work for the entire period and they could go whenever they like. Their attendance was
noted in the factory. They could come and go away at any time they liked. However no worker
was allowed to work after midday even though the factory was closed at 7 p.m. and no worker
was allowed to continue work after 7 p.m. There were standing orders in the factory and,
according to these orders a worker who remained absent for eight days presumably without
leave could and removed. The payment was made on piece rate according to the quantum of
work done, but the management had the right to reject such bidis as dad not come up to the
proper standard. On these facts the Supreme Court held that respondents were workers under
section 2 (1) of the Act.

4. Occupier

Section 2 (n) of the Act defines “occupier” of a factory to mean
The person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory:
Provided that -
(i) in the case of a farm or other association of individuals, any one of the individual partners
or members thereof shall be deemed to be the occupier;
(ii) in the case of a company, any one of the directors shall be deemed to the occupier;
(iii) in the case of a factory owned or controlled by the Central Government or any State
Government, or any local authority, the person or persons appointed to manage the
affairs of the factory by the Central Government, the State Government or the local
authority, as the case may, be shall deemed to be the occupier;
Provided further that in the case of a ship which is being repaired, or on which maintenance
work is being carried out, in a dry dock which is available for hire,
(i) the owner of the dock shall be deemed to be the occupier for the purposes of any matter
provided for by or under -
 Section 6, Section 7, Section 7-A, Section 7-B, Section 11 or Section 12;
 Section 17, insofar as it relates to the providing and maintenance of sufficient suitable
lighting in or around the dock;
 Section 18, Section 19, Section 42, Section 46, Section 47 or Section 49, in relation to
the workers employed on such repair or maintenance;

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 7