V. P. GOPALA RAO versus PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 875 · Decided: 07-03-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
V. P. GOPALA RAO 
v. 
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH 
March 7, 1969 
[S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
87 5· 
F"ctories Act (63 of 1948), ss. 2(k) (i), 2(1)-'Manufacturing pro-
ces~· and "workers'-Meaning of. 
The appellant who was the manager-cum-occupier. of a 
company's 
establishment at Elum was prosecuted for operating a factory 
without 
obtaining a licence as required by the Factories Act, 1948 and the Andhra 
Pradesh Factory Rules, 1950. 
The company had its main fact<>ry at 
Bombay. 
In the company's Eluru premises, sun-cu'red 
tobacco 
leave~ 
purc:hased from local producers were subjected to the processes of mois-
tening, stripping and packing. 
The tobacco leaves were moistened so 
that they could be handled without breakage. The moistening was done 
for IO to 14 days by sprinkling water on stacks of tobacco and shifting 
the top and bottom layers. The stalks were stripped from the leav~s. The 
Thukku (wholly spoilt) and Pagu (partly spoilt) leaves were separated. 
The leaves were tied up in bundles and stored in the premises. From time 
to time they were packed in gunny bags and exported to the company's 
factory at Bombay where they were used for 
manufacturing 
cigarettes. 
The appellant's defence was that it was not necessary to obtain the licence 
or permission because (i) no manufacturing 
process was carried on in 
the premises; and (ii) the persons who worked in the premises we're not 
workers as they were employed by independent contractors. The Magis-
trate accepted the defence contentions, and -acquitted the appellant. 
But 
the High Court convicted the appellant. 
Dismissing 
the 
appeal, this 
Court:-
HELD : The con1pany's premises at Eluru were a factory. 
(i) Manufacturing processes as defined in s. 2(k) (i) of the Factories 
Act were carried on in the premises. 
Under s. 2(k) (i) manufadturing 
precess means any process for 'making. altering, repairing ornamenting, 
finishing. packing. oiling, \\'ashing. cleaning. breaking up, demolishing or 
other,\ise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view to its 
use. sale, transport. delivery or disposal." The definition is widely worded. 
The moistening \vas an adaptation of the tobacco leaves. The stalks were 
stripped by breaking them up. 
The leaves were packed by bundling them 
up rind putting them into gunny bags. 
The breaking up, the adaptation 
and the pn.cking of the tobacco leaves were done with a view to their use 
and transport. 
All these proce'ises a're manufacturing process within s. 
2<kJ(i). [878 BJ 
State of Kenda v. V. M. Patel, 
[1961) I L.L.J. 
549, Sardar C. S. 
Anwe v. The State, I.LR. [1965) 15 Raj. 117, referred to. 
(ii) The persons employed were workers as defined in s. 2 (I) of the 
Facto'ries Act. 
More than 20 persons worked in the premises regularly 
every day. There was the positive evidence of P.W.s that the work of 
stripping stalks from the tobacco leaves was done under the supervision 
·975 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 3 s.c.R. 
.of the management. 
There was nu evidence to show that the other work 
in the premises was not done under like supervision. The prosecution ad-
duced prima facie evidence showin2 that the relationship of master and 
servant existed between the workmen and the management. The appellant 
<lid not produce any rebutting evidence. In the cross-examination of P. W. 
I, it was suggested that the workmen were employed by independent con-
tracts, but the suggestion was not borne out by the materials on the 
record. [881 B-EJ 
Sri ChintQman Rao & Anr. v. State of Madhva Pradesh, [1958] S.C.R. 
1340, 1349, Short v. J. W. Henderson Ltd., [1946] S.C. (H.L.) 24, 33-34. 
Dharangadhara Chemical Works v. State of Saurashtra, [1957] S.C.R. 152, 
State of Kera/a v. V. M. Patel [1961] 1 L.L.J. 549, Shankar Ba/aji Waje 
v. State of Maharashtra, [19621 1 Lab. L.J. 119, Bridhichand Sharma v. 
First Civil Judge, Na11vur, [1961] 2 Lab. L.J. 86, and D. C. Dell'all 
Mohinder Saheb & Sons v, United Bidi Workers' Union, [19641 
2 L.L.J. 
638, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
271 of 1968. 
Appeal by special leave .from the judgment and order dated 
July 3, 1968 of the Aindhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal 
Appeal No. 883 of 1966. 
M. C. Setalvad, J. M. Mukhi and G. S. Rama Rao, for the 
appe!lant. 
P. Ram Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. 
M/s. Golden

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