LexSHRI CHINTAMAN RAO AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1958 Fd>ruorg 18. 1340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1958] SHRI CHINT AMAN RAO AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (B. P. SINHA, JAHR !MAM and SUBBA RAO JJ.) \Vorker-Test for determining-Sattedars contractina to supply bidis to bidi factoTy andl coolies of such Sattedars-If workers in the factory-Factories Act (LXIII of 1948). ss. 2(1). 62, 63 and 92. The appellant was the manager of a liidi factory which had contracts with certain independent contractors, known as Sat- tedars, for the supply of bidis. The Sattedars undertook to sup- ply the bidis by manufacturing them in their own factories or by entrusting the work to third parties. at a pvice to be paid by the management after delivery and approval. The Inspector of Factories found working in the appellant's factory certain Sattedars and their coolies who had come to deliver bidis manu- factured by them. The appellant was prosecuted and convicted under s. 92, Factories Act for violation of the proV'isions of ss. 62 and 63 for failure to maintain the .register of adult workers and for allowing the workers to work in the factory without making beforehand the entries of their attendance in the re~is' ter: Held, that the Sattedars and their coolies were not workers wtithin 'he definition in s. 2(1) of the Act and. therefore, the non- inclusion of their names in the register or lthe absence of entries in regard to them therein did not constitute an offence under s. 92 of the Act. To determine whether a person emptoye,j is a worker the. test is whether or not the employer had oontTol and supervision over the manner in which the work was to be done, The Sattedars were not under the control of the factory mana- gement and could manufacture the bidis wherever they pleased. The coolies were neither employed by the management directly nor were they employed by the management through the Satte- dars. Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, P9571 S,C,R, 152, applied. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1955. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 16, 1954, of the former Nagpur High Court in Criminal Revision No. 295 of 1954, arising out of the judgment and order dated March 8, 1954, of the Second Additional Sessions Judge at Sagar in Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 1953, against the order dated August 5, 1953, of the Judge Magistrate. Sagar. in Criminal Case No. 146 of 1953. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1341 N. C. Chatterjee and Rameslnvar Nath, for the appel- lants. I. N. 'Shroff, for the respondent. 1958. February 18. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBAI RAO J.-This appeal by Special Leave is directed against the Order of the High Court of1Judicature at Nagpur and raises the question of construction of some of the provi- sions of the Factories Act (LXIII of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Before posing the questions raised it would be convenient and useful at the outset to state the facts either found by the High Court or admitted by the parties. Messrs. Brijlal Manila! and Company is a bidi factory situated in Sagar. The I st Appella.nt, Chintamanrao, is the Managing-Partner of the. firm while the 2nd appellant, Kantilal, is its active Manager. The Company manufactures bidis. The process of manufacture, so far as is relevant to the question raised, is carried out in two stages. The first stage: The management enters into a contract with independent contractors, known as Sattedars, for the supply of bidis locally. The documents embodying the terms of the contract entered into by the Sattedars were not pro- duced in th~ case. But the terms of the contract are not in dispute. The Management supplies tobacco to the .Sattedars and in some cases bidi leaves. Some of the Sattedars main- tain a. small factory where they get bidis manufactured by engaging coolies. Others give tobacco and bidi leaves to out- siders who prepare bidis in their houses. After bidis are rolled in the Sattedars collect the bidis so manufactured and take them to the factory directly or through coolies where they are sorted and checked by the workers in, the factory. The selected or approved · bidis are separately packed in bundles of IO and 25 and taken 'by the Sattedars or the coolies in gauze trays to tandul and left there. The rejected bidis, commonly known as 'chhant' are again rebundled by the Sattedars and delivered to th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.