ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD. versus RAMLAKHAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 93 · Decided: 16-02-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
93 
ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD. 
v. 
RAMLAKHAN SINGH AND ORS. 
February 16, 1978 
[N. L. UNTWALIA, P. S. KAILASAM AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.J 
Right to file a complaint u/s 26(2) r!w s. 2(4) of the Bihar Shops and 
Establishments Act, 1953. 
Words and Phrases-Scope of the words "subject to the manufacturing pro-
cess" occurrinR in s. 2(1) of the Factories Act (LXlll) 1948. 
A 
B 
The sen•ices of Respondent Ramlakhan Singh who 
was working ns sec-
tional officer in the Waste Paper' department of the paper 
factory of 
the 
C 
appellant at Dalmianagar. Bihar State was terminated with immediate effect 
by 
a 
notice dated 10-6-1970, 
with 
an 
offer 
of 
·one 
month's 
wages 
in lieu 
of notice. 
The respondent assailed 
the order of his 
termination by making a complaint u/s. 26(2) of the Bihar Shops & Establish-
ments Act, 1953. The appellant contested on merits, as well as on the techni-
cal ground that it \lo'as no~ maintainable under the Bihar Act as the respO'Ildcnt 
was not an employee within the meaning of s. 2 ( 4) of the Act. 
The Labour 
Court, by its order dated 29-5-1972, held that the respondent was not a factory 
vtork.e1' within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the Factories Act. 1948 and he-!1-ce 
D 
was a'!l employee· within the· meani~g of the Bihar Act. 
The Writ Petition 
filed by the appe1lant in the Patna High 
Court against the said 
order was 
dismissed asking hiln to aigitate this point after the final decision was made 
by the Court. The Labour Court oil merits, decided the matter on 28-2-1973. 
allowed the petition of the respondent and ordered his reinstatement with full 
back wages. 
A fresh writ petition challenging the said orders was also dis-
missed by the Patna High Court. 
AIIowing the appeal by special leave, the Court, 
E 
HELD: Only a. person who is an employee u/s 2(4) of the Bihar Shops 
and Establishments Act, 1953, could file an application u/s 26(2). [95B] 
Even persoos employed in a factory by the inclusive clause in the second 
5entence of the definition in S. 2(4) are employees within the meaning of the 
Bihar Act. 
But hvo exceptions have been carved ou~ from the category of 
such persons, namely, ( l) "Who are not workers within the meaning of tbc 
Factories Act", such CJ> worker does not come withi•.1 the inclusive definition of 
F 
the term emoloyee; (2) who <'!re ncn v:orking in a managerial capaciey. 
I'll 
other words even a person employed in a factory and who is not n \1/0rker 
within the meaning of the factories Act will not be an employee u/s 2 ( 4) 
of 
the Bihar Act, if he is working in a managerial capacity. 
[95D-F] 
Reading clause ( 1) of s. 2 of f1he Factories Act, 1948, together \\'ith ctausr 
(k) and (m) thereof. it is dear that a person to be a \Vorker withfn the rnca-n-
ing of the1 Factorie:~ Act rnu5t b~ a person employed i11 the premises or the 
precincts of the factory. 
f96Cl 
G 
Sta'e of U.P. v. M. P. Singh & Ors .. [1960] 2 SCR 605 reiterated. 
Raw materi2,1s used, in the manufacturing process for producing paper and 
i~ various products, undoubtedly. will be a 
"subject of the 
rnainufacturing 
process'' within the meaning of clnuse 1 of section 2 of the Factories 
Act. 
whatever also may be or n1ay not be such subject. 
[97A-B] 
In the instant case, the 
respo)l<lent was not 
working in a 
manageria·l 
H 
.capacity. 
Though 
he 
was 
not employed "in any manufacturing process or 
in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing 
process'', he was engaged in 
a 
work 
\Vhich 
was 
connected 
with 
the 
' 
; 
94 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1978] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
··~!Jbject of the J!lanufacturing proce~s'' and therefore, he was a factory \vorker 
\V1th1n the meaning of clause ( 1) of s. 2 of the Factories Act, 1948. 
He.nee 
he was not an employee within the meaning of the Bihar Shops and Establish-
ment<; Act, 1953. 
The petition of complaint filed by him u/s 26(2) was 
not 
maintainable. 
r96G, 97B.Cl 
B 
CIV!r. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 1821 
of 
1977. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
19th August, 1976 of a Bench of High Court of Patna in C.W.J.C. 
No. 650 of 1973). 
A. B. N. Sinha, B. P. Maheshwari and Suresh Sethi for 
the 
Appellant. 
C 
Lal Narain Sinha, P. P. Singh & H. S. Marwah for Respondent 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
UNTWAL!A, J.-This is an appeal by special leave. 
Shri Ram-
lakhan Singh, respondent no. 1 (for brevity, hereinafter called the 

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