BARAT FRITZ WERNER LTD. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 02-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BARA T FRITZ WERNER LTD. 
V. 
ST ATE OF KARNA TAKA 
FEBRUARY 2, 2001 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970: Section IO. 
Canteen workers-Contract labour-Notification prohibiting 
employment of-In industrial canteens and factories employing 250 workers 
or more-Validity of-Held: Provisions of canteen is a welfare measure and 
a requirement to the main activity of the establishment-The expression 
"process, operation or other work" covers not only the actual manufacture 
A 
B 
c 
but also other activities in industry not connected in the manufacturing D 
process-Hence, notification valid-Factories Act, 1948, Section 46. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Workers"-Meaning of-In the context of Section 2(1) of the Factories 
Act, 1948. 
E 
I 
"Process, operation or other work"-Meaning of-In the context of 
Section !0(2)(a)of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1971}. 
The respondent-State issued a notification under Section I 0 of the 
Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 prohibiting employment F 
of contract labour in industrial canteens and factories employing 250 workers 
or more. The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the validity 
of the aforesaid notification. Hence this Special Leave Petition. 
On behalfof the petitioner it was contended that the prohibition could 
only be in respect of operations which are activities closely and intimately G 
connected with the main activity of factory or establishment; that workers in 
a canteen were not engaged in any activity connected in the manufacturing 
process and, therefore, the notification was invalid. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the work in a canteen 
~s 
H 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200 I] I S.C.R. 
A was not only incidental to but also absolutely necessary and integral to the 
operation of factory em ploying 250 or more workmen and, therefore, the 
notification was valid. 
Dismissing the petition, the Court 
B 
HELD : I. The Factories Act, 1948 has been enacted to regulate labour 
in factories. The main object of the Factories Act is to ensure adequate 
safety measures and to promote the health and welf:i.re of the workers employed 
in factories by initiating various measures from time to time to ensure that 
adequate standard of safety, health and welfare are achieved at all work places. 
In particular, in the context of the need to secure maximum production and 
c productivity an appropriate work culture conducive to safety, health and 
happiness of workers has to be evolved in the factories. To achieve these 
objectives more effectively, this enactment has been made. In fact, by 
amendments to the term "worker" so as to include within its meaning contract 
labour employed in any manufacturing process, improvement of the provisions 
D in regard to safety and appointment of safety officers, reduction of the 
minimum number of woman employees have been made. The said enactment 
was intended for the regulation in such a manner as to benefit the welfare of 
the workers. Therefore, the objective of the Act is to confine the applicability 
of the act only to those workers on the premises of the factory as factory, 
workmen and not working in the industry as such. The industry or the 
E establishment, which runs the factory, is a much larger expression and it 
includes not merely the workmen in the factory but others also. 
[848-E-H; 849-AI 
2.1. The definition of'worker' in Section 2(1) of the Act is meant to 
relate to a factory where a manufacturing process or activity is carried on as 
F otherwise it does not constitute a factory. That definition of 'worker' cannot 
be read outside the context of the factories as defined under the Factories 
Act. But if this definition is applied in the manner suggested by the petitioner, 
it would be doubtful whether those in the Administration or the Accounts 
Department or the Stores or to other personnel like a Welfare Officer in the 
G establishment which runs the factory can at all be called the employees of the 
establishment or not. The kind of definition sought to be relied upon by the 
petitioner to be read beyond the statute would lead to absurd results. 
It cannot be disputed that the provision for canteen is a welfare measure 
and necessarily a requirement to run the same is incidental to the main 
H activity of the establishment particularly when it becomes a condition of 
..,_ 
'Ill 
-y--
_.. 
~

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.