Judgment

SHAH, J. : The first petitioner is a private limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1913 and the second petitioner is a Director of the Company. The Company maintains 23 establishments for manufacturing bidis in the District of Nasik, Poona and Ahmednagar in the State of Maharashtra. A large majority of these establishments are borne on the register of factories maintained by the Chief Inspector of Factories under the Factories Act, 63 of 1948. Craftsmen called rollers attend these establishments and prepare bidis, using materials supplied by the Company. The establishments remain open during specified hours but the rollers are not bound to attend for any fixed period: a roller may come to and leave the establishment according as is convenient to him, and he is paid for the bidies turned out by him according to a fixed tariff. It appears that this is the accepted modus of work in bidi establishments in the Maharashtra region. These establishments were, it was held by the Bombay High Court, factories and the rollers working therein were workers , within the meaning of the Factories Act, 63 of 1948: The State v. Alisaheb Kashim Tamboli, ILR (1955) Bom 624: In that case the High Court held that the expression employed in S. 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 does not necessarily involve the relationship of master and servant, and therefore owners of bidi establishments had to conform to the requirements of the Factories Act and to afford to the workers the benefits provided under that Act, even though the workers did not maintain uniform hours of attendance, and were paid only for bidis turned out by them. But this Court in Shankar Balaji Waje v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 517 (Subba Rao, J. dissenting) -held in dealing with the case of workers in an establishment for manufacturing bidis whose attendance was characterised by the features hereinafter set out, that they were not employed within the meaning of S. 2(1), and could not claim the privileges accorded to workers by Ss. 79 and 80 of that Act. The features noticed by the Court were, that there was no agreement or contract of service between the owner of the establishment and the bidi roller; the bidi roller was not bound to attend the factory for any fixed hours or to work for any fixed period; he was free to go to the factory at any time he liked and was equally free to leave the factory whenever he liked; the bidi roller could be absent from the work on any day and if his absence was expected to be of a duration longer than ten days he informed the owner not because he had to obtain permission or leave, but for assuring the owner that he did not intend to give up work that he did not intend to give up work at the factory; there was no actual supervision of work which the bidi roller did in the factory, and he was paid at fixed rates on the quantity of bidis turned out there being no stipulation for turning out any minimum quantity of bidis in a day; bidi leaves were supplied to the rollers for being taken home and cut and tabacco was supplied at the factory, but they were not bound to roll bidis at the factory - they could take the materials outside after obtaining permission of the owners, at the close of the day the bidis used to be delivered to the owners and bidis not up to the standard were rejected and the bidi worker s attendance was not noted though the days he worked could be ascertained from the work register. The Court held on these facts that the bidi roller could not be said to be employed by the owner and was not therefore a worker, there being no contract of employment, under which the bidi roller agreed to serve the employer subject to his control and supervision.

2. Since this judgement was pronounced, owners of bidi-making establishments in the State of Maharashtra commenced denying to the bidi rollers benefit of weekly holidays and wages in lieu of holiday previously accorded to them and even denied access to the In