JUDGMENT - (1) This Reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik, raises the vexed question of the connotation of the expression "employed" in S. 2(1) of the Factories Act which gives the interpretation of a "worker." It involves a decision trifling in pecuniary amount, but of considerable consequence to a large number of persons engaged as bidi rollers by manufacturers of bidis. The decided cases do not lay down any definition exclusive or inclusive of the expression "employed" nor any criterion of absolute applicability as to the exact conception of that expression used in the Factories Act (to be referred to by us as the Act). The question tha we have to determine is whether the relationship of employer and employee subsisted between the owner of a Bidi factory and a person rolling bidis in that factory and the question arose when the Inspector of Factories prosecuted the owner for contravening the provisions relating to leave in S. 79 of the Act. Four indices of a contract of service were discussed in a decision of the House of Lords in England and have been referred to in a recent decision of our Supreme Court. Of this mor hereafter.

(2) The accused is the owner and occupi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document