WORKS MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY WORKSHOP, JHANSI versus VISHWANATH AND ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 726 · Decided: 09-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

726 
WORKS MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY WORKSHOP, 
A 
JHANSI 
v. 
VISHWANATH AND ORS. 
October 9, 1969 
[J. M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Foctories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948)-S. 2(1)-Tinze keepers-.'/ workers 
lVithin the n1eaning of the section. 
In an application under s. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 
the respondents claimed that they were workers within the meaning of 
s. 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948. The Additional District Judge found 
that some of the respondents were time keepers who maintained atten~ 
dance of the staff, job card particulars of the various jobs under operation 
and the time sheets of the staff working on vaiious ·shops dealing with 
the production of Railway spare parts and repairs etc. and that other 
respondents were head time keepers entrusted with the task of supervising 
the work of other respondents. 
He, therefore, came to the conclusion 
that the 'h'Ork done by the respondents was "incidental to" or "connected 
with" the manufacturing process. 
The High Court in revision affirMed 
this order. 
On the question whether the respondents fell within the 
purview of the definition of "worker" in s. 2(1) of the Factories Act, 
HELD: (i) The conclusion of the Additional District Judge on the 
nature of the work of the respondents being one of fact must be held 
to be binding on the High Court on revision and also not open to reassess--
ment on the merits in t1'\s Court on special leave appeal from the order 
of the High Court. 
(ii) The definition in s. 2(1) is fairly wide because it takes within 
its sweep r.ot only persons employed in manufacturing process but also in 
cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing 
process and goes far beyond the direct connection with the manufacturing 
process by extending it to other kinds of work which may either be 
incidental to or connected with not only the manufacturing process itself 
but also the subject of the' manufacturing process. 
The definition there-
fore does not ex:clude those employees who were entrusted solely with 
clerical duties. if they otherwise fell within the definition of the word 
"worker". 
All Jegi'slation in a welfare state is enacted with the object 
of promoting general welfare, but certain types of enactments are ... nore 
resoonsive to some urgent social demands and also have more immediate 
and visible impact on social vices by operating more directly to achieYoe 
social reforms. The factories Act belongs to this category and, therefore. 
demands an interpretation liberal enough to achieve the legislative pur· 
pose, without doing violence to the language. [728 C-D; 731 B-D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1644 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
January 18, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision 
Application 24 of 1966. 
V. A. Seyid Muhammad and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. 
S. C. Agarwal, R. K. Garg, D. P. Sinf?h and S. Chakravart,-, 
for respondents Nos. 1 to 28 and 30 to 57. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
ID 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CENIRAL RLY. v. VISHWANATH (Dua, J.) 
727 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dua, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the 
order of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court 
affirming on revision under s. 115 Civil P.C. the order of th~ 
learned Additional District Judge, Jhansi, who had allowed the 
respondent's appeal from the order of the learned City Magistrate, 
Jhansi, made on an application presented by the 
respondents 
under s. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act IV of 1936. The City 
Magistrate was the "authority" appointed 
under s. 15 and tlle 
district court was the court of appeal under s. 17 of the said Act. 
The respondents through the Assistant Secretary of th~ National 
Railway Mazdoor Union Work-shop Branch, Jhansi had asserted 
in their application under s. 15 that they were workers within the 
meaning of s. 2 ( 1) of the factories Act 
( 63 of 1948) and 
complained that th-;y were denied wages for overtime work done 
by them on the erroneous ground that they 
were no: workers 
within the aforesaid provision. The learned Magistrate held that 
the respondents had been entrusted with purely 
clerical duties 
and they were not connected in any manner with the manufactur-
ing process. 
On this conclusion their application was dismissed. 
On appeal the learned Additional District Judge disagreed 
with this view and came to the conclusion th

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