LexMANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS ETC. ETC versus UNION OF INDIA ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.A
B
c
D
2:21
MANGALORE· GANESH BEED! WORKS ETC. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA ETC.
January 31, 1974.
IA. N, RAY, C.J., H. R. KHASNA, K. K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAMI
AND p, N. BHAGWATI, JJ.]
Bcedi and Cigar Workers (Condition of Employment)
A.ct, 196&.:-.f.r. 3,
4, 2(g)(a), 2(g)(li), 2(m), 26, 27 and 31~onstitutional validity of~on'
s1#Utiou of India, 1950-Art&. 14, 19(1)(g)-Legislative competence-14.ct if
falls within Entry 24 List II or Entries 22, 23 pnd 24 of List Ill, Seventh
Schedule-Rules laying down the mtJximum percentage of Beedis which can
be rejected, validity of-Sec. 37(3) i/ unworkable.
Interpretation-Reports of Conimission.J and Committees-Adniissibilily i11
evidence about the prev,ailing system and condition,, of industry.
The · beedi industry is widespread in the - country. Three systelns are
adopted for the manufacture of becdis. First. th.: factory system in whkh
the workers gather and work in a factory under the supervision Of the mantt-
facturer who .is the owner of factory. Secondly, the contract system of em·
ployment wherein the proprietor gives the middleman quantities· of beedi lea·
ves and tobacco. The contractor manufactures beedis by employing di. eclly
labourers or by distributing material amongst the home workers. The third
system is that of the out workers. They roll beedis out of tobacco · aBd beedi
leaves suppli~ by the proprietor without the agem;y of middle man.
The special feature of the industry is the manufacture of beedis through
E
. contractors and by distributing work in private dwelling houses where the wor-
kers take raw-material given by the employers of contractors. The relation-
ship between employers and employees is not well defined. The application·
of the Factories Act bas always met with difficulties. .The labour in the ·
industry is unorganised and is not able to look after its own interests, The
industry is highly mobile, The attempts of i!IOme of the states to legislate in
thi?.l behalf have not been successful. Anxiety has been expressed by several
committees and commissions, appointed by the Central Government and some
F
of the State Government, to introduce ~ome regulation in the em11l .... ve·r-cm-
rloyee relatiohship and to obtain certain benefits to the employees which have
been denied to them. They have reported extremely unsatisfactory and. un-
heu.ltby working conditions
long hours of work with low wages and anres-
tricted emuloyment of wofnen and children. It was found that the contract
otnd bOme ·work systems enriched th~ nro;Jrictor <:t th·! expense of 1h
Woi kers
and al-so deprived the worker':! of th;! b.lrgaining power in regard to conditions
of labour.
G
It. is in this background that the Becdi an9 Cigar Workers (Conditfoni!I. of
f::mployment) Act, 1966, came into existence. The Act was pass~d to pro'ftde
fer the welfare of workers in Beedi and Cigar establishments and to regulate
lb~ conditionc; of their work. and for matters connected therewith.
H
. The ne.titioner,i and the appellants,
proprietors of beCdi
fat!ori~' a.nd
own-rs of trac!I! mark.and ~ome home workers. !mpl"ached the const1tuh.onahty·
of the Act.
They contended; (i) being a legislation for regulating "beedi .and
c.igar indu~try it fell under Entrv 24 Ust TI o.f the &-vf"nth Srhedul"' an~. th~re ..
fore .Parlj:iment had. ~oJegi.slative C?mpct~i:ice to., enact the. mea~~r~~ <!.~).Sec
tions 3. and 4 of Act wh1rh required hcen~ in reo;nec;:t. of, .tn<'f~triij PTC:'
mises violate.d Art~.~.19(1).{p.) and. 14 slnc~ .. they.conf~rre.d ~!1{ettered p~wers
on the licensing p,utbority. without the rcqms1te safeguards: (111) the provu1ons.
2-954 SCI/74
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1974 J 3 S.C.R.
of section 2(g)(a), 2(g)(b} and 2(m') read with section 2(c) and (f) created
a totally artificial and fictional definition of employer and thereby imposed·
vicarious liabilities upon a manufacturer of and trader in beedies in respect of
diverse matters which entailed civil and criminal liabilities and thereby imposed
unreasonable restrictions on the manufacturers in their right to carry on trade
::.nd business; (iv) sec. 26 and 27, dealing with lcavo and wages. during leave
pedod. cast unreasonable burden and imposed obligations which were not
cap<1ble of fulfilment and thus violated Art. 19(1)(f) and (g), and, in any
event. th= section'i were
unenforceable
with regard to hom! workers an·t
thciefOrc violated Art. 19(l)(f) and (g) so farExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.