THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus M. P. SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 15-12-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
M. P. SINGH AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
605 
K. SuBBA RAo, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Commercial Establishment--Fie!d Workers of a Sugar Factory 
-If workers of a Commercial Establishment-United Provinces Shop 
and Commercial Establishment Act, I947 (U. P. Act No. XXII of 
z947), s. 2(3), Factories Act, z948 (Act LXIII of z948), s. 2(I). 
The three respondents, who were the General Manager, the 
Assistant Manager and the Secretary of the Laxmi Devi Sugar 
Mills Ltd., were charged under ss. 12, 13 and 26 of the United 
Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment· Act, 1947, for 
contravening the provisions of the Act relating to holidays, leave 
and maintenance of certain registers regarding a class of field 
workers employed by the company to guide, supervise and con-
trol growth and supply of sugar cane for use in the factory. It 
was contended on their behalf that those employees were workers 
within the meaning of the Factories Act and the United Provinces 
Shop and Establishment Act did not apply to them. The Judi-
cial Magistrate rejected that contention and convicted the 
respondents under s. 26 of the Act and sentenced them to pay a 
fine of Rs. 30 each. On a .reference by the Sessions Judge recom-
mending that the said convictions and sentences may be set aside, 
the High Court acquitted the respondents. The State Govern-
ment appealed to this Court by Special Leave. 
Held, that the order of acquittal passed by the High Court 
was erroneous. 
The provisions of the Factories Act were intended to benefit 
only. workers employed in a factory and since field workers 
guidiug,_supervising and controlling growth and supply of sugar 
cane for use in the factory were not employed in the factory, the 
Factories Act did not apply to them and they fell within the 
definition of "Commercial Establishment" under the United 
Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, 1947. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeals Nos. 157 and 158 of 1957 and 5 of 1958. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated October 31, 1955, of the Allahabad High 
Court, in Criminal Reference Nos. 28, 29 and 30 of 
1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated 
December 18, 1954, of the Sessions Judge, Deoria, in 
Criminal Revisions Nos. 7, 8 and 9of1954. 
I959 
, December I 5; 
• 
I959 
The State of 
Utiar Pradesh 
v. 
M.P. Singh 
Shah]. 
< 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)] 
G. 0. Mathur, 0. P. Lal and G. N. Dikshit, for the 
appellant. 
W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the 
respondents. 
1959. December 15. The Judgment of the. Court 
was delivered by 
SHAH J.-The question which falls to be determin-
ed in this group of appeals is whether field workers, 
i.e., Supervisors and Kamdars employed by a sugar 
factory to guide, supervise and control the growth 
and supply of sugarcane for use in the sugar factory 
are employees of a 'Commercial Establishment' with-
in the meaning of the United Provinces Shop and 
Commercial Establishment Act, XXII of 1947 (herein-
after referred to as the Act). The Magistrate who tried 
the respondents for offences under s. 27 of the Act 
held that the field workers were employees of a Com-
mercial Establishment. The High Court at Allahabad 
took a contrary view, and the State of Uttar Pradesh 
has appealed to this court against the order of the 
High Court with special leave under Art. 136 of the 
Constitution. 
The United Provinces Shop and Commercial Esta-
blishment Act, 1947 was enacted to regulate the hours 
of employment and certain other conditions of employ-
ment in shops and commercial establishments. Com-
mercial Establishment is defined by s. 2, cl. 3 of the 
Act. By s. 12 of the Act, provision is made for giving 
to the employees a weekly holiday besides holidays 
which may be granted under s. 11. Section 13 pro-
vides for granting ordinary, casual and "sickness 
leave." Section 26 requires the employer to maintain 
such registers and records and to display such notices 
as may be prescribed and s. 27 penalises contraventions 
of the Act and the rules made thereunder. 
The Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter 
referred to as the company) owns a factory at Chhit-
auni for manufacturing sugar. The three respondents 
are respectively the General Manager, Assistant Man-
ager and Secretary of the company. The company 
employs certain classes of field w

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