# SHRI CHINT AMAN RAO AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1958] 1 S.C.R. 1340
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1958
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1955
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, Jahr !Mam, Subba Rao
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shri-chint-aman-rao-and-another-v-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-1419
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

\Vorker-Test for
determining-Sattedars contractina
to
supply bidis to bidi factoTy andl coolies of such Sattedars-If
workers in the factory-Factories Act (LXIII of 1948). ss. 2(1).
62, 63 and 92.
The appellant was the manager of a liidi factory which had
contracts with certain independent contractors, known as Sattedars, for the supply of bidis. The Sattedars undertook to supply the bidis by manufacturing them in their own factories or
by entrusting the work to third parties. at a pvice to be paid
by the management after delivery and approval. The Inspector
of Factories found working in the appellant's factory certain
Sattedars and their coolies who had come to deliver bidis manufactured by them. The appellant was prosecuted and convicted
under s. 92, Factories Act for violation of the proV'isions of ss. 62
and 63 for failure to maintain the .register of adult workers
and for allowing the workers to work in the factory without
making beforehand the entries of their attendance in the re~is'
ter:
Held, that the Sattedars and their coolies were not workers
wtithin 'he definition in s. 2(1) of the Act and. therefore, the noninclusion of their names in the register or lthe absence of entries
in regard to them therein did not constitute an offence under
s. 92 of the Act. To determine whether a person emptoye,j is a
worker the. test is whether or not the employer had oontTol and
supervision over the manner in which the work was to be done,
The Sattedars were not under the control of the factory management and could manufacture the bidis wherever they pleased.
The coolies were neither employed by the management directly
nor were they employed by the management through the Sattedars.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra,
P9571 S,C,R, 152, applied.

## Text

1958
Fd>ruorg 18.
1340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1958]
SHRI CHINT AMAN RAO AND ANOTHER
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(B. P. SINHA, JAHR !MAM and SUBBA RAO JJ.)
\Vorker-Test for
determining-Sattedars contractina
to
supply bidis to bidi factoTy andl coolies of such Sattedars-If
workers in the factory-Factories Act (LXIII of 1948). ss. 2(1).
62, 63 and 92.
The appellant was the manager of a liidi factory which had
contracts with certain independent contractors, known as Sattedars, for the supply of bidis. The Sattedars undertook to supply the bidis by manufacturing them in their own factories or
by entrusting the work to third parties. at a pvice to be paid
by the management after delivery and approval. The Inspector
of Factories found working in the appellant's factory certain
Sattedars and their coolies who had come to deliver bidis manufactured by them. The appellant was prosecuted and convicted
under s. 92, Factories Act for violation of the proV'isions of ss. 62
and 63 for failure to maintain the .register of adult workers
and for allowing the workers to work in the factory without
making beforehand the entries of their attendance in the re~is'
ter:
Held, that the Sattedars and their coolies were not workers
wtithin 'he definition in s. 2(1) of the Act and. therefore, the noninclusion of their names in the register or lthe absence of entries
in regard to them therein did not constitute an offence under
s. 92 of the Act. To determine whether a person emptoye,j is a
worker the. test is whether or not the employer had oontTol and
supervision over the manner in which the work was to be done,
The Sattedars were not under the control of the factory management and could manufacture the bidis wherever they pleased.
The coolies were neither employed by the management directly
nor were they employed by the management through the Sattedars.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra,
P9571 S,C,R, 152, applied.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Criminal Appeal
No. 93 of 1955.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated September 16, 1954, of the former Nagpur High Court
in Criminal Revision No. 295 of 1954, arising out of the
judgment and order dated March 8, 1954, of the Second
Additional Sessions Judge at Sagar in Criminal Appeal No.
368 of 1953, against the order dated August 5, 1953, of the
Judge Magistrate. Sagar. in Criminal Case No. 146 of 1953.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1341
N. C. Chatterjee and Rameslnvar Nath, for the appellants.
I. N. 'Shroff, for the respondent.
1958. February 18. The following Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
SUBBAI RAO J.-This appeal by Special Leave is directed
against the Order of the High Court of1Judicature at Nagpur
and raises the question of construction of some of the provisions of the Factories Act (LXIII of 1948) (hereinafter
referred to as the Act). Before posing the questions raised it
would be convenient and useful at the outset to state the
facts either found by the High Court or admitted by the
parties.
Messrs. Brijlal Manila! and Company is a bidi factory
situated in Sagar. The I st Appella.nt, Chintamanrao, is the
Managing-Partner of the. firm while the 2nd appellant,
Kantilal, is its active Manager. The Company manufactures
bidis. The process of manufacture, so far as is relevant to the
question raised, is carried out in two stages.
The first stage: The management enters into a contract
with independent contractors, known as Sattedars, for the
supply of bidis locally. The documents embodying the terms
of the contract entered into by the Sattedars were not produced in th~ case. But the terms of the contract are not in
dispute. The Management supplies tobacco to the .Sattedars
and in some cases bidi leaves. Some of the Sattedars maintain a. small factory where they get bidis manufactured by
engaging coolies. Others give tobacco and bidi leaves to outsiders who prepare bidis in
their houses.
After bidis are
rolled in the Sattedars collect the bidis so manufactured and
take them to the factory directly or through coolies where
they are sorted and checked by the workers in, the factory.
The selected or approved · bidis are separately packed in
bundles of IO and 25 and taken 'by the Sattedars or the
coolies in gauze trays to tandul and left there. The rejected
bidis, commonly known as 'chhant' are again rebundled by
the Sattedars and delivered to the factory. The management
L/S4SCI-11 (11)
1968
8/iri Okintaman
Rao & Another
v.
The State of
Madhya l'radf!llt
Suhbti Rao J.
1958
8kri Ohi·nblma:•
Rao &r AnolJu,r
v.
The State of
Matlhya Praduh
SubbaRaoJ.
1342
SUPRElliE COURT REPORTS
(1958]
pays the Sattedars the cost of the manufacture of bidis after
deducting therefrom the cost of tobacco supplied to them.
Thereafter the second stage of the process of the manufacture
begins in the factory. It is carried out exclusively by the
labourers employed in the factory. It consists of warming of
bidis to give taste, wrapping them in tissue papers, labelling
and finally bundling them in the 'Pudas'. The finished product is then marketed. Jlrom the aforesaid description of the
dual process of manufacture of bidis it is manifest that a
Sattedar is only an independent contractor, who undertakes
to do a specific job of work, i.e., the supply of bidis. directly
or indirectly through
his coolies, by manufacturing theni
either in his own factory or by entrusting the work to third
parties, at a price to be paid by the management after
delivery and approval. He (Sattedar) or his coolies neithec
work in the appellants' factory nor are they subject to tl-:e
supervision or control of the appellants. The coolies or the
third parties, to whom the work of making of bidis is en·
trusted by the Sattedars, are employed by the Sattedars and
are paid by them. None of them works in the factory though
they bring bidis to the factory for delivery in accordance
with the terms of the contract. It may also be pointed out
that the factory employs workers who are under the direct
control and supervision of the factory management and who
attend to the second part of the process of manufacture described above.
On December 9, 1952, Sri B. V. Desai, the Inspector of
Factories, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur, visited the factory at
5-30 p.m. At the time of his inspection he found the following persons in the factory :
l. Pirbaksha, son of Amir.
2. Abdul Sagir, son of Sk. Alam.
3. Deviprasad. son of Uddam.
4. Ramshankar, son of Mulchand.
5. Gopal, son of Mulchand.
6. Nirpat, son of Bhagirath.
7. Ramchand, son of Gyan.
8. Gotiram, son of Lila.
9. Basodi, son of Gulu.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1343
Of the aforesaid persons, Deviprasad, Nirpat and Gotiram
are Sattedars a.nd the rest are coolies employed by the Sattedars .. The Inspector found the first seven persons sorting out
bidis and packing them into bundles of 10 and 25 in the
premises and the last two bringing the bidis to" the room in
jali for warming; The said facts are practically admitted by
some of the aforesaid persons, who ga.ve evidence in the
case, and they explained that they came to the factory on
that day for delivering the bidis manufactured. by them to
the factory.
Thereafter .the Chief Inspector of Factories filed a complaint in the Court of the Judge-Magistrate, Sagar, against
the appellants for violation of the provisfons of ss. 62 and
63 of the Act, under the former· for failure to n;iaintain the
register of adult workers with all the prescribed entries duly
filled in and under the latter for allowing the workers to
work in the factory without making beforehand the entries
of their attendance in the register of adult workers. The
Judge-Magistrate, Sagar, held that the appellants contravened the provisions of the aforesaid sections and on that
finding convicted them under s. 92 of the Act and directed
them to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and Rs. 25 respectively. On
appeal the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, confirmed the conviction of the 2nd appellant for contravening
the provisions of ss. 62 and 63 but set •aside that of the lst
appellant in regard to s. 6~ but confirmed the conviction for
contravening s. 63 of the Act. The Revision Petition filed by
the appellants in the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur was
dismissed. As aforesaid with Special Leave of this Court,
this appeal was filed against the Order of the High Court.
The conflicting contentions of the parties may l>riefly be
stated. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that
a Sattedar is an independent contractor, who undertakes to
do a specific job of work for other persons without submitting himself to their control, and that he or his . employee
is itot a worker within the defulltion of s: 2(1) of the Act and
therefore the appellants are not under duty to co~ply with
1958
Shri Ohintaman
Rao&. Another
v.
The Stal,,, of
Madhya Prad .. T.
8ul>ba Rao J,
Sliri Cltinfnman.
Rao .v. , 11wther
v.
~'he 8tuJe Qj
,1/adliyn Prw.:'-<Jh
Subba Rao J.
1344
SUPRK\fE COURT REPORTS
[1958]
the conditions of ss. 62 or 63 in respect of them. Whereas
the learned Counsel for the State argues that the definition
of the word 'worker' is comprehensive enough to take in all
persons who work in the factory. whether employed by the
factory or not.
The answer to the question raised turns upon the construction of the relevant provisions of the Act. They read:
Section 62. Register of adult workers:
The manager of every factory shall maintain a register
of adult workers, to be available to the Inspector at all times
during working hours, or when any work is being carried
on in the factory, showing-
(a) the name of ea.ch adult worker in the factory;
(b) the nature of his work:
(c) the group, if any, in which he is included;
(d) where his group works on shifts, the relay to
•
which he is allotted;
(e) such other particulars as may be prescribed:
Provided that, if the Inspector is of opinion that any
muster roll or register maintained as part of the routine of
a fa.ctory gives in respect of any or all the workers in the
factory the particulars required under this section, he may,
by order in writing, direct that such muster roll or register
shall to the corresponding extent be maintained in place of,
and be treated as, the register of adult workers in that
factory.
Section 63. Hours of work to
correspond with notice
under Section 61 and register under Section 62No adult worker shall be required or allowed to work
in any factory otherwise than in accordance with the notice
of periods of work for adults displayed in the factory and
the entries made before-hand against his name in the register
of adult workers of the factory.
Section 92. General penalty for offences.
Save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act and
subject to· the provisions of section 93, if in, or in respect
of, any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of. this Act or. of any rule made thereunder or of
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1345
any order in writing given thereunder, the occupier and
manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three months or with fine which may extend to five. hundred rupees or with both, and if the contravention is continued
after conviction, with a. further fine which may extend to
seventy-five rupees for each day on which the contravention
is so continued.
Section 2(1) 'worker' means a. person employed, directly
or through any agency, whether for wages or not, in any
manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery ~r premises used for manufacturing process, or in
any other kincf of work incidental to, or connected with, the
manufacturing process, or the subject of the manufacturing
process.
Section 2(m) "factory" means any premises including
the precincts thereof-
(i) Whereon ten or more workers are working, or were
working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and
in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried
on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on, or
(ii) Whereon twenty or more workers .are working, or
were working on any day of the preceding twelve months,
and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being
carried on without the aid of power, or is. ordinarily so
carried on, .................................... :
Section 2(n) "occupier" of a factory means the person
who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory,
The gist of the aforesaid provisions relevant to the
question raised may be stated thus:
The .Manager of a
factory-factory is defined under the
Act as the premises
wherein a specified number of workers are working and in
any part of which a manufacturing process is carried on,
with or without the aid of power-shall maintain a register
of adult workers
working in that factory, show1ng the
necessary particuJars mentioned in s. 62 of the Act.
No
1958
Skri OMntama"
Rao er. AllOtw
"'·
The Staid of
Madhya Praduh
&diba Rao J.
JY.i8
fJ'hri Cld11tama.n
Rew &, A1wll1er
v.
'l'lie St<1fo uf
Madhya. PradEtA
SttLba Ruo J.
l34(i
SUPHEME COUHT REPOHTS
[1958]
adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in any such
factory otherwi.se than in accordance with the notice of periods
of work for adults displayed in the factory and the entries
made beforehand against his name in the register of adult
workers of the factory. If there is any contravention of the
said provisions, the occupier, who is defined as a person
who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory,
and the manager are guilty of offences punishable under
the Act.
Admittedly the names of the 9 persons, stated
supra,
were not entered in the register of adult workers maintained
by the factory. Neither any notice of the periods of work
allotted to them was displayed in the factory nor any entries
made beforehand against their names in the register of adult
workers of the factory.
The appellants, therefore, would
have certainly contravened the provisions of the Act, if, in
fact, the said persons were workers in the factory as defined
under the Act.
This takes us to the consideration of the definition of
the term 'worker' under the Act. 'Worker' is defined to mean
a person employed, directly or through any agency, whether
for wages or not, in any manufacturing process. It is and
it cannot be disputed that the making of bidis is a manufacturing process. But is a Sa,ttedar a person 'employed', directly
or through agency, within the meaning of the definition ·
"employed". The concept of employment involves three in·
gredients: (I) employer (2) employee and (3) the contract of
employment. The employer is one who employs, i.e., one
who engages the services of other persons. The employee
is one who works for another for hire. The employment is
the contract of service _between the employer and the employee whereunder the employee agrees to serve the em·
ployer subject to his control and supervision. Can it be said
that a Sattedar is employed by the management of the fac·
tory to serve under it? There is a well understood distinction
between a contractor and a workman and between contract
for service and contract of service. In Stroud's Judicial
Dictionary (Third Edition, Volume I, Page 616) the distinc-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1347
tion between a. contractor and a workman is brou&ht out in
bold relief in the following manner :
"Of course, every person who makes _an agreement with
another for the doing of work is a contractor, in a general
sense; but as used in Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897
(60 & 61 Viet., c. 37), s. 4 "contractpr" and "WORKMAN"
"have come to have a more restricted and distinctive meaning," and "contractor" means 'one who makes an agreement
to carry out certain work specified, but not on a contract
of service'."
The same idea is repeated in a different terminology
thus:
"A 'contractor' is a person who, in the pursuit of an
independent business, undertakes to do specific jobs of work
for other persons, without submitting himself to their control in respect to the details of the work".
There is, therefore, a clear-cut distinction between a contractor and a workman. The identifying mark of the latter is that
he should be under the control and supervision · of the employer in respect of the details of the work. This Court in
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra(')
in the context of the definition of "workman" under the
Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of 1947) made the following
observations ·at page 157:
"The essential condition of a person being a workman
within the terms of this definition is that he should be employed to do the work in that industry, that there should be,
in other words, an employment of his by the employer and
that there should be the relationship between the employer
and him as between employer and employee or master and
servant. Unless a person is thus employed there can be no
question of his bCing a workman within the definition of the
term as contained in the Act."
Elaborating the point further, Bbagwati J. who delivered
<') (1957] $.C.R. 152.
19Ji8
Skri Ohintaman
Rao &: Another
. v.
The State of
M adliya Pradull
SubbaRao J,
Shri Chintaman
&w fh .Another
v.
The Stale of
Madhya Pra<i"h
Subia Rao J,
'
1348
SUPREME COURT. REPORTS
[1958]
the jud!l"'1ent on behalf of the Court proceeded to state:
"The test which is uniformly applied in order to determine the relationship is the existence of a right of control in
respect of the manner in which the work is to be done."
After oonsideri~ the Case-la~ on the subject the learned Iudge restated the principle a.t page 160 thus:
"The principle which emerges from these authorities is
that the prima facie test for the determination of the relationship between master and servant is the existence of the right
in the master to supervise and control the work done by the
servant not only in the matter of directing what work the
servant is to do but also the manner in which he shall do his
work, or to borrow the words of Lord Uthwa.tt at page 23 in
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins and Griffith
(Liverpool) Ltd., and another ([19471 I A.C. 1, 23), "The
proper test is whether or not the hirer had authority to control the manner of execution of the act in question."
After noticing the subsequent trend. of decisions wherein it
is observed that the test of control is not one of universal
application, the learned Judge expresses his view thus:
"The correct method of approach, therefore, would be
l'O consider whether having regard to the nature of the work
there was due control and supervision by the employer ......
"
... _ .. _ ....................................... .
There is no reason why the test laid down by this Court
in the context .of. the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, cannot be invoked or applied
for ascertaining whether a person is a 'worker' under the Act.
If the test be appiled, it is not possible to hold that Sattedars
in the present case, having regard to the nature of the work
undertaken by them and the terms whereunder their services
were engaged, a.re "workers" within the meaning of the definition under the Act. .It has been established in the present
case that the Sattedar is only an indep,endent contractor and
the agreement between the tnanagement and the Sa.ttedar is
'
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1349
only that the Sattedar should receive tobacco from the management and supply them rolled in bidis for cqnsideration. He
i& not under the control of the factory management and he
can manufacture bidis wherever he pleases. It is immaterial
to the management whether he makes the bidis in his own
factory or distributes. tobacco to different individuals for
making bidis · under a separate agr~ment entered into by
him with them. The management cannot regulate the manner
of discharge of his work. His liability is discharged by his
supplying bidis and delivering them in the factory. The terms
of the contract between the management and the Sattedar,
as disclosed in the evidence, do not enjoin on the latter to
work in the factory. His only obligation is to deliver bidis at
the factory. That would be an obligation imposed on any
contractor who undertakes to supply and· deliver the goods
to the other party. We, therefore, bold that the Sattedars in
this case were not employed by the management as workers
but were only· indepcpdent :contractors · who performed their
part of the ~act bf tt)aking '?idis. and delivering them at
th~ factory. ·
·
·
If the Satt(!dars, i.e., three out of the nine persons found
at the factory, were' oot workers within the meaning of the
Act, can it be said that the other persons, .who were coolies
.
.
.
I
employed by the Sattedars to enable them to keep up their
contract with t,he management of the factory, were workers
as defined under the Act?' A "worker" under the def4iition
means a person employed, directly or through any agency.
The words 'directly or through any agency' indicate that the
emplo'yment is by the management directly or through some
kind of employment agency and in either case there i& a contract of employment between the management and the persons employed .. Admittedly the coolies were not employed
by the management; there was no privity of contract between
them and the management. It is· not disputed that the coolies
were not employed by the Sattedars for or on behalf of the
management of the ·factory. They were employed by the
Sattedars on their own a~caunt and they paid them for .the
l!JJ8
Shri Chiutaman
Roo &: Another
v.
2' he State of
M rulkya Pradesh
Subba l!ao J.
1!J;J8
::ihri'. CltintamtHi
RM 4: Anotlu!.r
...
Tlw Stale Qj
Jlarlhya Prade8/t.
Su.bba llim .T.
1350
SUl'REllfE OOUHT REPORTS
[1958]
work extracted from them. On the aforesaid facts it is obvious
that the coolies were not employed by the
management
directly nor were they employed by the management through
the agency of Sattedars. If so, it follows that coolies employed by the Sattedars are not workers within the meaning of
the definition in the Act.
The evidence discloses a third category of persons who
took some part in the manufacturing process of bidis. They
were the persons to whom the Sattedars distributed tobacco
for ·making bidis in · their respective homes. It does not appear from the evidence
that any one of the nine persons
found in the factory belongs to that category. That apart those
persons cannot, in any sense of the term, be called the persons employed by the management directly or through any
agency.
That that should be the construction of the provisions
of s. 2(1) of the Act is reinforced by other relevant provisions of the Act. Chapter 6 is headed "Working hours of
Adults". Section 51 prescribes the weekly hours of work for
a worker. Section 52 provides that no adult worker shall be
required or allowed to· work in a factory on the first day of
the week and if he is made to work on that day for the
substitution of another holiday in its place. Section 53 gives
compensatory holiday to a worker who is made to work on
a regblar holiday. Section 54 fixes the daily hours of work
and s. 55 intervals for rest. Section 56 limits the spreadover
of period of work for an adult worker to 10! hours in a
day, including the intervals for rest. Sections 57, 58, and 59
deal with night shifts prohibition of overlaping shifts and
extra wages for overtime. Section 60 prohibits double em·
ployment. i.e., employment of the same worker in a factory
on any day on w~ch he. has already been working in any
other factory. Section 61 enjoins qn the management of the
factory to display and maintain the notice of periods of work
for adults, showing clearly for every day the periods during
which the adult workers may be required lo work and directs
S.C.R.
SUPREM.E COURT REPORTS
1351
that the said notice shall be such that the workers working
for those periods would not be working in ~ontravention of
any of the provisions of SS. 51, 52, 54, 55, 56 and 58 of the
Act. Section 62, for breach of which provisions the prosecution was launched in the present' case, imposes a duty bn the
manager of every factory to maintain a register of adult
workers, showing .the name of each adult worker in the factory, the nature of his work, the group, if any, in which he
is included, where his group works on shifts, the relay to
which he is allotted and such other particulars as may be
prescribed. Section 63' directs that the hours of work of an
adult worker should correspond with the particulars given
. in the notice under s. 6 l u.nd the reiister under s. 62. Section
92 constitutes the contravention of any of the provisions of
the Act or any rules made thereunder an offence punishable
with imprisonment or fine or· with both .. the scheme of the
aforesaid provisions indicates that the workmen in the factQry
are under the direct supervision and control of the management. The conditions of service are statutorily regulated and
the ma.nagement is to conform to the rules laid down at the
risk of being penalised for dereliction of any of the statutory
duties. The management obviously cannot fix the ·working
hours, weekly holidays, arrange for night shifts and comply
with other statutory requirements, if the persQns like the
Sattedars, working in their factories and getting their work
done by others or through coolies, are workers within the
meaning of the Act. It is well nigh impossible for the management of the factory to regulate their work or to comply with
the mandatory provisions of the Act. The said provisions,
therefore, give a clear indication that a worker under the definition of the Act is a person who enters into a contract of
service under the management and does not include an independent contractor or his coolies or servants who are not
· under the control and supervision of the employer.
Thei:e is a. conflict of decisions between the Allahabad
and the Nagpur High Court~ on the construction of s. 2(1)
of the Act. A Divisional Bench of the Nagpur High Court
1958
Shri Chintaman
Rao th A nather
v.
Tlie Stat' of
Madhya Pra<W;ih
,<fohha Rao .T.
19.>8
Sl1ri Ohintawon
Jff1.0 d: Ano(/11.r
,._
TIH' 8/A,ff' of
~fmll•11a Prarfl'.~li
.':• 11hbn
Rno ./.
1352
SOPRE~IE COUllT REPORTS
[1958)
in Prm•i11cia/ Gm•emment, Central Provinces and Berar v.
Robinson(') considered the scope .of the definition of the
word "worker" in the Factories Act. There the facts were:
On November l 0, 1943, a new battery of boilers was being
erected. on the premises of the Jubbulpore Electric Supply
Co. in order to supply energy to the New Ordnance Factory
at
Khamaria.
The
work
of erectiop.
was entrusted
to Messrs. Babcock and )Vilcox of Calcutta. The persons who were employed by Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox
were found working in the premises of the Electric Supply
Co. in contravention of the provisions of the Factories Act.
The question was whether the employees of an independent
.contractor were workers as defined under s. 2(1) of the Act.
Pollock J. who delivered the judgment of the Division Bench
stated at page 44 thus:
"The definition of "worker" is a very wide one, and it
is wide enough, in our opinion, to include persons employed
in repairing machinery or putting up new machinery, even
if such a machinery is not in actual use at the time."
It may be noticed that no contention was raised in that
case that the persons found in the factory were not the employees of Jubbulpore Electric Supply Co. The only question
raised and decided was whether the persons employed in
repairing the machinery or putting up new ma.chinery were
persons engaged in any manufacturing process or any work
incidental to or connected with it. The question now raised
was not before the learned Judge and therefore there was
no occasion for them to express any opinion thereon. The
fact that if this question was raised and decided in the way
we did, the conclusion of the learned Judges would have been
different cannot make the said decision an authority on a
point not raised or decided upon by the learned Judges.
Another Bench of the Nagpur High Court in The State
v. liwabhai(') gave a. wide connotation to the word "employed" under s. 66(l)(b) of the Factories Act. The learned
(') I.L.R. (1947] Nagpur 43.
(') l.L.R. (1953] Nagpur 67.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1353
Judges observed that the word "employed", in their opinion,
did not only connote employed on wages but also being
occuP..ied or engaged in some form of activity. If the learned
Judges meant by that observation that if a person is found
engaged in some form of activity in a factory, irrespect~e
of whether there was any contract of employmeAt or not
between him and the employer, he is a worker, we should
express our respectful dissent from the said observa.tion. But,
on the other hand, if they had only emphasized on the fact,
which is obvious from the provisions of s. 2(1), that the
employment need not be for wages, the statement is unobjectionable.
The decision in State v. Shri Krishna Prasad Dar(')
need not be considered in detail as the learned Judges therein accepted the same interpretation that we have placed on
the provisions of s. 2(1) of the Act and came to the conclusion, on the facts of that' case, that the persons therein
were workers of the factory.
We, therefore, hold that neither the Sattedars nor the
coolies found by the Inspector to be working in the factory
were workers, as they were not employed by the factory.
As they were not workers, the non-inclusion of their
names in the register of adult workers or the absence of any
entries in regard to them in the .said register would not constitute an offence under s. 92 of the Act.
Before leaving. this case we would like to make one
observation. Our decision is not intended to lay down a
general proposition that under no circumstances a Sattedar
can be considered to be a worker within the meaning of its
definition in the Act.
Whether a particular person, under
whatever designation he may be known, is a worker or not
under the Act depends upon the terms of the contract entered into between him and the employer. In the case before
us no attempt has been made by the prosecution to establish
that the Sa.ttedars were employed by the
management for
(') A.I.R. (1954] Allahabad 44.
19.5/i
811ri Cltinlfnn,,·n
llfln & A ·1wtl1f'r
, ..
'1
1'1e 8111-h o/'
Jind/11111 l'rade•ll.
1958
Shri Chintnm.nn
Rnn &: A)u1/lu,,.
v.
'l'ltt S!fllfr~f
;l{rullt!ff1· J'-rml1·.<fi
S·1d1hri
Jf11n
.1.
1354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[J 058)
doing work in the factory. The uncontradicted evidence is
that they were independent contractors who came to the
factory to deliver the bidis or sent their coolies to do the
same. Our decision is. therefore, confined to the facts of this
case.
In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the convictions of the appellants under s. 92 of the Act and the sentences imposed upon them. The fines if paid, will be refunded.
A ppea/ allowed .
•