M/S. BHIKUSE YAMASA KSHATRIYA (P) LTD., & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1964] 1 S.C.R. 860 · Decided: 08-02-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1963 
860 SUPREME COURT REPORtS [1964] vot. 
M/s. BHIKUSE YAMASA KSHATRIYA 
(P) LTD., & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
(P. B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HmAYATULLAH, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
]. C. SHAH, jj.) 
Bidi Rolur-Deemtil worker by Government Notification-
Notification, if 
invalid 
and 
discriminatory-If infringu 
fundamenlal right-Fa<Joriu Acl, 1948, u. 2 (1), 2 (m), 79, 
85-Constitulion of India, Art.. 14, 19 (1) (9). 
Bidi rollers were formerly given the benefit of weekly 
holidays and wage• in lieu of holidays. 
But as a result of the 
decision of this Court, the owners of bidi making establishments 
in the State of Maharashtra refused to give them tho.c benefits. 
There was great unrest and 
consequently 
the State of 
Maharashtra issued a notification under '· 85 of the FactoriC! 
Act which made bidi rollers in places set out in the Schedule 
"deemed workers" and on that account entitled to the benefits 
provided to workers under the Factories Act. 
The petitioners challenged before this Court the validity 
of s. 85 of the Factories Act and the notific .. tion ismed in 
exercise of the authority conferred thereby on the ground that 
the provisions of s. 
8.'"1 and the notification issued thereunder 
infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioner• 
°\der Arts. 
14 and 19 (I) (g) of the Constitution. 
Held, thats. 85 which authorises tho State Government 
to issue a notification applying all or any of the provisions of 
the Factories Act to any place in which a manufacturing process 
is carried on and which involves the consequence that the place 
is deemed a factory and the persons working therein are deemed 
workers, is not by itself discriminatory so as to infringe Art. 
14 of the Constitution. The provision also does not amount to 
authorising the imposition of unreasonable re9trictions upon 
the fundamental right of the owner of the factory to carry on 
hi• business. The impugned notification is not open to attack 
on the ground that the State issued the notification by selecting 
for application of the provisions of the Act some out qf the 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
861 
many places in which Bidi-manufacturing processes are being 
carried on. In so far as the notification seeks to apply the 
provisions of the Act imposing upon the owner or an occupier 
of the factory obligation to grant annual leave with" wages, it 
does not impose any unreasonable restriction. 
Section 85 was enacted with the object of conferring 
authoiity on the State Government to extend in appropriate 
cases the provisions of the Factories Act to establishments which 
are otherwise not factories within the meaning of the Act and 
to ensure to persons working in factories even if not workers 
within the meaning of the Act, the benefits provided thereby. 
The section o.uthorises the State Government to make all or 
some of the provisions of the Act applicable to any place where-
in a manufacturing process is carried on with or without the 
aid of power, notwithstanding that 
the number of persons 
employed therein is less than the number >pecified in the 
definition of •factory' or where the persons working therein are 
not employed by the owner but are working with the permission 
of, or under agreement with, such owner. 
Ifs. 79 is made applicable as a result of a notifi ·at ion 
issued under s. 85, it would apply to those workers only who 
work in the factory for the full period prescri'>ed 11nder 
ss. 61, 66 (I) and 71 of. the Factories Act by the employer. 
A 'deen1ed worker' who is paid only for w0rk done hy him and 
who is ug,der no obligation to attend at anv fixe<l tiine may be 
entitled to the benefit of annual leave with wages only if he 
fulfil• the working conditions applicable to workers as defined 
in s. 2 (I) of the factories Act 
The privilege of working 
for a period less than the period prescribed 
for regular 
workers in a factory wHl not, if he works for 
less than 
the prescribed hours, co1ne to the aid of a 
"deemed worker" 
so as to enable him to claim the benefits of s. 79. 
H iwever, 
that privilege will not deprive him of the benefit of s. 79 if he 
fulfils the conditions relating to the duration of wo,k. 
The 
fact that a "deemed worker'' in a fartory co which s. 79 is 
extended by notification, by virtue of his co:1tract or other\vise, 
is not bound to attend at times fixed by the owner of the 
factory, does not mean that he can never fulfil the cunditions 
relating to attendance

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