LexSHRI BIRDHICHAND SHARMA versus FIRST CIVIL JUDGE NAGPUR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 161 SHRI BIRDHICHAND SHARMA v. FIRST CIVIL JUDGE NAGPUR AND OTHERS. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Industrial Dispute-Workers in bidi factory-Liberty to come and go when they liked-Payment on piece-rate-Control by rejec- tion of work not upto the standard-If workmen-Test-Factories Act, z948 (LXIII of z948), ss. 2(l) and 79. The appellant employed workmen in his bidi factory who had to work at the factory and were not at liberty to work at their houses; their attendance were noted in the factory and they had to work within the factory hours, though they were not bound to work for the entire period and could come and go away when they liked; but if they came after midday they were not supplied with tobacco and thus not allowed to work even though the factory closed at 7 p.m.; further they could be re- moved from service if absent for 8 days. Payment was made on piece rates according to the amount of work done, and the bidis which did not come upto the proper standard could be rejected. The respondent workmen applied for leave for 15 days and did not go to work, for which period the appellants did not pay their wages; in consequence the concerned workmen applied to the Payment of Wages Authority for payment of wages to them. The appellant's contention that the respondent workmen were not his workmen within the meaning of the Factories Act, was rejected and the claim for payment of wages was allowed. The question therdore was whether the appellants were workmen within the meaning of the Factories Act. Held, that the nature of extent of control varies in different industries and cannot by its very nature be precisely defined. When the operation was of a simple nature and could not be supervised all the time and the control was at the end of day by the method of rejecting the work done which did not come up to proper standard, then, it was the right to supervise and not so much the mode in which it was exercised which would determine whether a person was a workman or an independent con tractor. The mere fact that a worker was a piece-rate worker would not necessarily take him out of the category of a worker within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the Factories Act. In the instant case' the respondent workmen could not be said fo be independent contractors and were workmen within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the Factories Act. He/,l, further, that the leave provided for under s. 79 of the Factories Act arose as a matter of right when a worker had put .. December 9. • 162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961]1 '960 in a minimum nnmber of working days and he was entitled to 'h . -. -. it. The fact that the workman remained absent for a longer .5 " lludhicha"d period had no bearing on his right to leave. 01 ' 0 '"'" State v. Shankar Balaji·Waje; .U.R. U)6o Rpm. 296, appro- v. d Fi1st Cii,.il fudge ve · Nagpu' & Oth<1s Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, [1957] S.C.R 152 and Shri Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1958] S.C.R. 1340, referred to. CIVIL APPELLA'l'E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 370 of 1959. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 6, 1957, of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur, in Misc; Petition No. 512 of 1956. M. N. Pharlke and Naunit Lal, for the appellant. Shankar Anand and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the res- pondents Nos. 2-4. N. P. Nathvahi, K. L. Hathi and R. H. Dhebar, for the Intervener (State of Bombay). 1960. December 9. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by wan,hoo J. WANOHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave in an industril)>I matter. The appellant is the manager of a biri factory in Nagpur. Respondents 2 to 4 are working in that factory. They applied for leave for fifteen days from December 18, 1955, to January 1, 1956, and did not go· to work during that period. The appellant did not pay their wages for these days and in consequence they applied to the Payment of Wages Authority (hereinafter called t.he Authority) for pa:)'· ment to them of wages which had been withheld. Their claim was that they were entitled to fifteen days' leave in the year under ss. 79 and 80 of the :Factories Act, 1948. The Authority allowed the claim and. granted them a sum of Rs. 90/6/· in all as wages which had been withheld for the period of leave. Thereupon, the appellant filed an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the Hi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.