JUDGMENT - (1) This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquital passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate. 6th Court, Mazagaon, Bombay. The material facts may, briefly, be stated as follows: on 1-4-1958, Factry Inspector Shinde visited the premises of a concern known as Western India Saw Mills situated at Reay Road, Bombay-10. His object ws to inspect the factory under the Factories Act. He found that thirty workers were actually engaged in doing some job or in the other on the premises of the factory. He also noticed that the manufacturing process of cutting, plaining and shapping of wook was going on with the aid of power. The accused respondent produced a register Ex. A. which contained 19 names in one place and additional nine names at another place. According to the Inspector, all the thirty persons, who were engaged in the factory, were workers within the meaning of that word in the factories Act 1948. He, therefore, lkodged a complain is the learned Presidence Magistrates courts, Mazagaon. Bombay, for the violation of the provisions of Section 7(1) read with section 92 of the factories Act, 1948, and also of Rs.4 of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1950.

(2) The defence of the respondent was simple. He contended that the Western India Saw Mills was a partnership concern and there were nineteen parters in this concern including himslef. According to him, the nineteen names that are mentioned in Ex. A are the names of the partners. He further stated that on the day in question eighteen persons were actaully working. He asserted that as a matter of fact, the nine names appearing in Ex. A are the names of workers who were working on wages in the concern.

He also explained that the remaining three persons, who are shown at serial Nos. 20, 25 and 30 in the register, Ex. B, prepared by the Inspector, were partners of another concern known as Western India Joinery works and that they had come there on the day in question, because some of the partners in the two concerns are common. He also pointed out that the premises for Western India Saw Mills. Western India Joinery works and Western India Spray Painting and polishing works are the same.

(3) The learned Presidency Magistrate accepted the contentions of the defence and acquitted the respondent. It is fropm that decision that the state has come up in appeal.

(4) The respondent produced two partnership deeds in support of his contention that in all there were nineteen partners in the concern known as Western India Mills Saw and also in the other concern known as Western India Joinery works. The defence has also examined tow witnessess viz., Laxman Ramachandra, D.W. 2 and Ramachandra Hari, D.W. 3 stated that, as a matter of fact, there were five such concerns including the Western India Saw Mills and the Western India Joinery works and that he has looking after the work of attendance of the workers in all these concerns. He also asserted that he was one of the partners in these concers. The trying Magistrate accepted the evidence of these two witnesse and also relied upon the terms of the two deeds of partnership and came to the conclusion that, as a matter of fact, there were nineteen partners including the respondents in the concern known as Western India Saw Mills.

(5) The learned Assistant Government Pleader frankly conceded that he is not in a position to assail this finding of fact arrived at by the learned Magistrate on the basis of oral and documentary evidence led before him. He, however, contended that even assuming that there were nineteen partners in the concern, still if these partners or any of them engage themselves in doing the work on the premises of the factory, then everyon of them could fall within the definition of the word worker given in S. 2(1) of the Act, and inasmuch as the number of such workers exceeded ten, the provisions for the Factories Act are obviusly violated.

(5a) In order to appreciate this line of argument, it is necessary to refer to a f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document