SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(SC) 12

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
18th February, 1958.
B.P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM, K.SUBBA RAO, JJ.
Chintaman Rao and another, Appellants
Versus
State of M.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 1955.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate. (Mr. Rameshwar Nath, Advocate of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co., with him), for Appellants; Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate for Respondent.

Advocates:
I.M.SHROFF, N.C.CHATTERJI, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY

A Sattedar, who is an independent contractor, and his coolies are not workers within the meaning of the Factories Act.

Headnote:

FACTORIES ACT - SECTION 2(1) - WORKER - DEFINITION - SATTAEDAR - INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR - NOT A WORKER - COOLI EMPLOYED BY SATTAEDAR - NOT A WORKER - PERSONS TO WHOM SATTAEDAR DISTRIBUTES TOBACCO FOR MAKING BIDIS IN THEIR HOMES - NOT WORKERS.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted under the Factories Act for failing to maintain a register of adult workers and for allowing workers to work without making entries in the register. The appellants contended that the Sattedars, who were independent contractors, and their coolies were not workers within the meaning of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Sattedars were not workers as they were not employed by the factory and were independent contractors. The Court also held that the coolies employed by the Sattedars were not workers as they were not employed by the factory or through an agency of the factory.

Issues: Whether Sattedars and their coolies are workers within the meaning of the Factories Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the definition of "worker" under the Factories Act and held that a worker is a person who enters into a contract of service under the management and does not include an independent contractor or his coolies or servants who are not under the control and supervision of the employer.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions of the appellants.

Judgment

K. SUBBA RAO, J. : These appeal by Special Leave is directed against the Order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur and raises the question of construction of some of the provisions of the Factories Act (63 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.

2. Messrs. Brijlal Manilal and Company is a bidi factory situated in Sagar. The 1st Appellant, 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.

3. 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 produced in the 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 maintain a small factory where they get bidis manufactured by engaging coolies. Others give tobacco and bidi leaves to outsiders 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 10 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 the factory. The management pays the Sattedars the cost of the manufacture of bidis after deducting therefrom the cost of tobacco supplied to them. Thereafter the second stage of the process of the manufacture begins in the factory. It is carried out exclusively by the labourers employed in the factory. It consists of warming of bidis to give taste, wrapping them in tissue papers, labelling and finally bundling them in the Pudas . The finished product is then marketed. From the aforesaid description of the dual process of manufacture of bidis it is manifest that a Sattedar is only an independent contractor, who undertakes to do a specific job of work i.e., the supply of bidis, directly or indirectly through his coolies, by manufacturing them either in his own factory or by entrusting the work to third parties, at a price to be paid by the management after delivery and approval. He (Sattedar) or his coolies neither work in the appellants factory nor are they subject to the supervision or control of the appellants. The coolies or the third parties, to whom the work of making of bidis is entrusted by the Sattedars, are employed by the Sattedars and are paid by them. None of them works in the factory though they bring bidis to the factory for delivery in accordance with the terms of the contract. It may also be pointed out that the factory employs workers who are under the direct control and supervision of the factory management and who attend to the second part of the process of manufacture described above.

4. On December 9, 1952. Sri B. V. Desai, the Inspector of Factories, Madhya Pradesh, Nagpur, visited the factory at 5-30 p. m. At the time of his inspection he found the following persons in the factory :

1. Pirbaksha, son of Amir.

2. Abdul Sagir, son of Sk. Alam.

3. Deviprasad, son of Uddam.

4. Ramshankar, son of Mulchand.

5. Gopal, son of Mulchand.

6. Nirpat, son of Bhagirath.

7. Ramchand, son of Gyan.

8. Gotiram, son of Lila.

9. Basodi, son of Gulu.

Of the aforesaid persons, Deviprasad, Nirpat and Gotiram are Sattedars and the rest are coolies employed by the Sattedars. The Inspector found the first seven persons sorting out bidis and packing them into bundles of 10 and 25 in















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top