LexSTATE OF KERALA & ANR. versus R. E. DSOUZHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
711
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
v.
R. E. D'SOUZHA
[S. M. SIKRI, C.J., P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND J. D. DUA, JJ.)
February 12, 1971
Factories Act, 1948, s. 2(1)-"Worker"-Who is-Constitution of
India Article 134(1) (c)-Principles already settled by Supreme Court-
Questions concerning application thereof-Whether raise issues fit for
app'"/ to Supreme Court.
After catches of prawns made from time to time were brought to the
respondent's premises, a casual and irregular group of women and· girls
of the locality came at their convenience to do the peeling, washing, etc.
at piece-rates. There were no specified hours of work and after finish-
ing their work, the workers would go on to do similar work at other pre-
mises in the locality.
The respondent's conviction under s. 92 of the
Factories Act for, inrer alia, using his premises as a factory without
obtaining registration, etc. was set aside in revision by the High Court on
the view that the workers in question were not '
1workers" within the
meaning of the Factories Act. On appeal to this Court,
'
HELD : The High Court had rightly decided that the workers in the
present case \vere not "workers" covered by s. 2 ( 1) of the Factories Act.
(714 CJ
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, A.I.R.
l'f57 S.C. 264: Chintaman Rao & An'other v. The State of Madhya Pra-
desh, (1958] S.C.R. 1340; State of Kera/a v. V. M. Patel, [1960] K. L, J.
1524 and Birdhichand Sharma v. First Civil Judge, Nagpur, [1961] 3 S.C.R;
I 61; applied.
Obiter :
After this Court had laid down a test to be applied for determinin~
who were '"workers" within the meaning of the Factories Act, the High
Court should have freated the question of principle as no longer op"n.
The High Court had cortified the case to b& fit for appeal as it felt that
the question involved is of general importance in the State. If the qucs·
tion of principle has been settled by this Court, the application of the
principle to the facts of a particular case does not make the question a
fit one for the Supreme Court within Article 134(1) (e) of the Consti-
tution. (714 DJ
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Criminal Ap{leals
Nos. 205 and 206 of 1968.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 21, 1968
of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 415
and 416 of 1967.
D. P. Singh and M. R. K. Pillai, for the appellants (in both
the appeals) .
712
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] 3 S.C.R.
G: B: Pai, P. N. Tiwari, 0. C. Mathur and Bhaian Ram
Rakh1am, for the respondent (in both the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S~ C.J. These appeals are on certificates granted by
!he High Court of Kerala. The only question in these appeals
1s whether the workmen doing work in the premises of the res-
pondent are workers within the meaning of Sec. 2 (1) of the
Factories Act,, 1948.
Section 2 ( 1 ) of the Factories Act, 194 8 reads as .follows :
" 'Worker' me11ns a person employed, directly or
through any agency, whether for wages or not, ill any
manu!acturing process, or in cleaning any part of the
machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process,
or in any other kind of work incidental to, or connect-
ed with, the manufacturing process, or the subject of
the manufacturing process;"
The respondent was convicted under Sec. 92 oI the Factories
Act for using a building as a factory without obtaining the pre-
vious permission in writing of the Chief fuspector of Factories.
for failing to apply for registration and grant of licence for the
factory and for failing to maintain a muster roll of the workers
employed in the factory in one case, and for
failing to give
attendance cards to every person employed in the factory in the
other case.
The respondent was
sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs. 20/- in each case. He was also directed under &:. 102 of
the Factories Act to rectify the defects within a specified period.
The respondent filed a Revision Petition in the High Court.
The High Court held that the work that was being carried out' in
the premises of the respondent amounted to manufacturing pro-
cess. This question has not been debated before us. The High
Court further held that the workmen working in the premises of
the respondent were not 'workers' within the meaning of Sec. 2 (1)
of the Factories Act. It is this part of the decision that has been
challenged in appeal by the State of Kerala.
The natrire of Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.