# THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. M. P. SINGH AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1960] 2 S.C.R. 605
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1960
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeals Nos. 157 and 158 of 1957
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendragadkar, 605 K. SuBBA RAo, K. C. Das Gupta, J.C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-v-m-p-singh-and-others-1878
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Commercial Establishment--Fie!d Workers of a Sugar Factory
-If workers of a Commercial Establishment-United Provinces Shop
and Commercial Establishment Act, I947 (U. P. Act No. XXII of
z947), s. 2(3), Factories Act, z948 (Act LXIII of z948), s. 2(I).
The three respondents, who were the General Manager, the
Assistant Manager and the Secretary of the Laxmi Devi Sugar
Mills Ltd., were charged under ss. 12, 13 and 26 of the United
Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment· Act, 1947, for
contravening the provisions of the Act relating to holidays, leave
and maintenance of certain registers regarding a class of field
workers employed by the company to guide, supervise and control growth and supply of sugar cane for use in the factory. It
was contended on their behalf that those employees were workers
within the meaning of the Factories Act and the United Provinces
Shop and Establishment Act did not apply to them. The Judicial Magistrate rejected that contention and convicted the
respondents under s. 26 of the Act and sentenced them to pay a
fine of Rs. 30 each. On a .reference by the Sessions Judge recommending that the said convictions and sentences may be set aside,
the High Court acquitted the respondents. The State Government appealed to this Court by Special Leave.
Held, that the order of acquittal passed by the High Court
was erroneous.
The provisions of the Factories Act were intended to benefit
only. workers employed in a factory and since field workers
guidiug,_supervising and controlling growth and supply of sugar
cane for use in the factory were not employed in the factory, the
Factories Act did not apply to them and they fell within the
definition of "Commercial Establishment" under the United
Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, 1947.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeals Nos. 157 and 158 of 1957 and 5 of 1958.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and
order dated October 31, 1955, of the Allahabad High
Court, in Criminal Reference Nos. 28, 29 and 30 of
1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated
December 18, 1954, of the Sessions Judge, Deoria, in
Criminal Revisions Nos. 7, 8 and 9of1954.
I959
, December I 5;
•
I959
The State of
Utiar Pradesh
v.
M.P. Singh
Shah].
<
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)]
G. 0. Mathur, 0. P. Lal and G. N. Dikshit, for the
appellant.
W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the
respondents.
1959. December 15. The Judgment of the. Court
was delivered by
SHAH J.-The question which falls to be determined in this group of appeals is whether field workers,
i.e., Supervisors and Kamdars employed by a sugar
factory to guide, supervise and control the growth
and supply of sugarcane for use in the sugar factory
are employees of a 'Commercial Establishment' within the meaning of the United Provinces Shop and
Commercial Establishment Act, XXII of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Magistrate who tried
the respondents for offences under s. 27 of the Act
held that the field workers were employees of a Commercial Establishment. The High Court at Allahabad
took a contrary view, and the State of Uttar Pradesh
has appealed to this court against the order of the
High Court with special leave under Art. 136 of the
Constitution.
The United Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, 1947 was enacted to regulate the hours
of employment and certain other conditions of employment in shops and commercial establishments. Commercial Establishment is defined by s. 2, cl. 3 of the
Act. By s. 12 of the Act, provision is made for giving
to the employees a weekly holiday besides holidays
which may be granted under s. 11. Section 13 provides for granting ordinary, casual and "sickness
leave." Section 26 requires the employer to maintain
such registers and records and to display such notices
as may be prescribed and s. 27 penalises contraventions
of the Act and the rules made thereunder.
The Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as the company) owns

## Text

-
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
M. P. SINGH AND OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
605
K. SuBBA RAo, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Commercial Establishment--Fie!d Workers of a Sugar Factory
-If workers of a Commercial Establishment-United Provinces Shop
and Commercial Establishment Act, I947 (U. P. Act No. XXII of
z947), s. 2(3), Factories Act, z948 (Act LXIII of z948), s. 2(I).
The three respondents, who were the General Manager, the
Assistant Manager and the Secretary of the Laxmi Devi Sugar
Mills Ltd., were charged under ss. 12, 13 and 26 of the United
Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment· Act, 1947, for
contravening the provisions of the Act relating to holidays, leave
and maintenance of certain registers regarding a class of field
workers employed by the company to guide, supervise and control growth and supply of sugar cane for use in the factory. It
was contended on their behalf that those employees were workers
within the meaning of the Factories Act and the United Provinces
Shop and Establishment Act did not apply to them. The Judicial Magistrate rejected that contention and convicted the
respondents under s. 26 of the Act and sentenced them to pay a
fine of Rs. 30 each. On a .reference by the Sessions Judge recommending that the said convictions and sentences may be set aside,
the High Court acquitted the respondents. The State Government appealed to this Court by Special Leave.
Held, that the order of acquittal passed by the High Court
was erroneous.
The provisions of the Factories Act were intended to benefit
only. workers employed in a factory and since field workers
guidiug,_supervising and controlling growth and supply of sugar
cane for use in the factory were not employed in the factory, the
Factories Act did not apply to them and they fell within the
definition of "Commercial Establishment" under the United
Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, 1947.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal
Appeals Nos. 157 and 158 of 1957 and 5 of 1958.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and
order dated October 31, 1955, of the Allahabad High
Court, in Criminal Reference Nos. 28, 29 and 30 of
1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated
December 18, 1954, of the Sessions Judge, Deoria, in
Criminal Revisions Nos. 7, 8 and 9of1954.
I959
, December I 5;
•
I959
The State of
Utiar Pradesh
v.
M.P. Singh
Shah].
<
606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)]
G. 0. Mathur, 0. P. Lal and G. N. Dikshit, for the
appellant.
W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the
respondents.
1959. December 15. The Judgment of the. Court
was delivered by
SHAH J.-The question which falls to be determined in this group of appeals is whether field workers,
i.e., Supervisors and Kamdars employed by a sugar
factory to guide, supervise and control the growth
and supply of sugarcane for use in the sugar factory
are employees of a 'Commercial Establishment' within the meaning of the United Provinces Shop and
Commercial Establishment Act, XXII of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Magistrate who tried
the respondents for offences under s. 27 of the Act
held that the field workers were employees of a Commercial Establishment. The High Court at Allahabad
took a contrary view, and the State of Uttar Pradesh
has appealed to this court against the order of the
High Court with special leave under Art. 136 of the
Constitution.
The United Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, 1947 was enacted to regulate the hours
of employment and certain other conditions of employment in shops and commercial establishments. Commercial Establishment is defined by s. 2, cl. 3 of the
Act. By s. 12 of the Act, provision is made for giving
to the employees a weekly holiday besides holidays
which may be granted under s. 11. Section 13 provides for granting ordinary, casual and "sickness
leave." Section 26 requires the employer to maintain
such registers and records and to display such notices
as may be prescribed and s. 27 penalises contraventions
of the Act and the rules made thereunder.
The Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as the company) owns a factory at Chhitauni for manufacturing sugar. The three respondents
are respectively the General Manager, Assistant Manager and Secretary of the company. The company
employs certain classes of field workers to guide,
'
-
-
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
607
supervise and control the growth and supply of sugarcane for use in the Factory. The Deputy Chief Ins-
. pector of Shops and Commercial Establishment, Uttar
Pradesh, filed three complaints against the respondents
ill the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Deoria, charging them with contravention of the provisions ofss. 12,
13 and 26 of the Act in respect of certain field workers
employed by the company for guiding, supervising
and controlHng the growth and supply of sugarcane.
The i·espondents contended that the Act did not apply
to those employees as they were workers within the
meaning of the Factories Act and accordingly exempt
from the operation of the Act..
The Judicial Magistrate rejected the contention and convicted the respondents of contravention of s. 26 of the Act and
sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 30 in each
of the three cases.
Against the orders of conviction
and sentence, the respondents preferred revision applications -to the Court of Session at Deoria. The
Sessions Judge disagreed with the view of the Trial
Magistrate and referred the cases to the High Court
at Allahabad recommending that the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Magistrate
be set aside. The High Court accepted the references
and ordered that the respondents be acquitted.
By the definition of a Commercial Establishment in
s. 2 cl. 3 of the Act, the clerical and other establishments of a factory to whom the provisions of the
Factories Act, 1934, do not apply, are included in the
connotation of that expression. It is true that the
reference in the definition by which clerical and other
establishments of factories are included is to the
Factories Act of Hl34, but by virtue of s. 8 of the
General Clauses Act X of 1897, it must be construed
as a reference to the provisions of the Factories
Act LXIII of 1948 which repealed the Factories Act
of 1934 and re-enacted it. The contention raised by
the State by special leave, that since the repeal of the
Factories Act, 1934, in the definition of Commercial
Establishment in s. 2 cl. 3, are included all clerical and
other establishments of a factory without any exemption has therefore no force.
.
:r959
The Stale of
Uttar Pradesh
v.
M.P. Singh
Shah].
'959
The State of
Ullar Pradesh
v.
Af.P. Singh
Shah].
608
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2))
The Factories Act, 1948 defines a worker by s. 2 (1)
as meaning,
" 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
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."
and a factory is defined by s. 2(m) as meaning any
premises including the precincts thereof wherein a
specified number of workers on any day of the preceding twelve months is employed. By the combined
operation of these definitions, persons employed in any
manufacturing process or in cleaning any part of the
machinery or part of the 'premises used for the manufacturing process or any other kind of work incidental
to or connected with the manufacturing process or the
subject of the manufacturing process are deemed to be
workers in a factory.
By the use in s. 2 (I) of the
Factories Act of the expression, 'employed in any
other kind of work incidental to or connected with the
subject of manufacturing process ', not only workers
directly connected in the manufacturing process, but
those who are connected with the subject of manufacturin& process in a factory are included. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this case to decide the
precise meaning of the expression ' subject of the
manufacturing process' in s. 2 cl. (1), because the
diverse provisions of the Factories Act are intended to
benefit only workers employed in a factory, i.e., in the
precincts or premises of a factory. It is difficult to
hold that field workers who are employed in guiding,
supervising and controlling the growth and supply of
sugarcane to be used in the factory are employed
either in the precincts of the factory or in the premises of the factory ; and if these workers are not
employed in a factory, the provisions of the Factories
Act, HJ48 do not apply to them and they evidently fall
within the definition of 'Commercial Establishment'.
The High Court was of the view that the Supervisors and Kamdars connected with the subject of
-
<
..
'
-
- ,
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
609
manufacturing process,
namely sugarcane,
were
workers within the meaning of the Factories Act and
accordingly they were excluded from the definition of
' Commercial Establishment' under the Act. However,
even if the Supervisors and Kamdars were employed
"in any other kind of work connected with the subject
of manufacturing process", unless they were employed
in the factory, the provisions of the Factories Act do
not apply to them, there is_ no dispute that they are
employees of a ' Commercial Establishment ' within
the meaning of the Act.
.
The High Court was therefore in error in acquitting
the respondents of the offences of which they were
convicted by the Trial Magistrate. The orders of
acquittal passed by the High Court are set aside and
the orders of conviction -and sentence passed by the
Trial Magistrate are restored. In view of the order
of this Court dated October I, 1956, made at the time
of granting special leave, the respondents are entitled
to their costs of hearing in this court.
Appeal allowed.
MINERAL DEVELOPMENT LTD.
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,
K. SuBBA RAo, K. C. DAS GuPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Fundamental Rights-Restriction by State imposed by la1t1Reasonableness-Objective test-Duty
of
Court-Constitutionit
validity-Bihar Mica Act, r947, s. 25(r)(c)-Constitution of India,
Arts. Ig(r)(j), (g) and r9(5) & (6).
The Secretary of the Government of Bihar in the Revenue
Department issued a notice to the petitioner company who were
the lessees of mining lease, charging it with violation of ss. IO, 12
and 14 of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947, and calling upon it to show
cause why action should not be taken to cancel its licence which
was being issued from year to year for mining Mica.
The
company asked for particulars of the alleged violation of the
provisions of the Act from the Government which was furnished.
The company sent a written representation to the Government
-
denying the allegations. After two years of the said representa-
.,. •
tion, the Government issued a notification cancelling
the
78
.r959
TM State oj
Ultar Pradesh
v.
M. P. Singh
Shah].
.r959
December .r5.