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

1976 Supreme(Del) 66

High Court Of Delhi
PARBHAT SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
Civil Writ 1423 of 1967
Decided On : 04/30/1976

Advocates Appeared:
B.R.KOHLI, R.N.Dixit

A person must work within the premises or precincts of a factory to be a worker under the Factories Act, 1948.

Headnote:

FACTORIES ACT - WORKER - DEFINITION - SCOPE - BOOKING SIRCARS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY MANUFACTURING OXYGEN AND ACETYLENE GASES - DUTIES PERFORMED - WHETHER WORKERS - HELD, NOT WORKERS - WORK DONE NOT WITHIN THE PREMISES OR PRECINCTS OF THE FACTORY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Parbhat Singh, was employed as a booking sircar by Indian Oxygen Limited, a company manufacturing oxygen and acetylene gases. He was allotted a house under the Government of India Subsidised Housing Scheme for Industrial Workers. However, his allotment was canceled on the ground that he was not a worker as defined in the Factories Act, 1948. The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his allotment.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner was not a worker as defined in the Factories Act, 1948. The court found that the petitioner's work was incidental to or connected with a manufacturing process, but that work was not done within the premises or precincts of the factory. Therefore, the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of being a worker under the Factories Act.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was a worker as defined in the Factories Act, 1948.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of worker in the Factories Act, 1948, must be read in combination with the definition of factory. The court found that the petitioner's work was incidental to or connected with a manufacturing process, but that work was not done within the premises or precincts of the factory. Therefore, the petitioner did not satisfy the requirement of being a worker under the Factories Act.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.

T. P. S. CHAWLA, J.

( 1 ) THE question to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner, Parbhat Singh, is a, worker as defined in the Factories Act 1948. It has arisen in a somewhat devious way. For over two decades the petitioner has been employed by Indian Oxygen Limited who manufacture oxygen and acetylene gases. He started as a, labourer ( mazdoor ) in the factory of the company at Delhi. On 1st October 1953, he was promoted and became a booking sircar . He has been working as such ever since. In a letter written by the company the duties of booking sircars have been described as follows:

they come in the morning to take cash from the cashier and to give accounts of the previous day s work. After this they go out to the Railway Station and Goods Transport Companies, where they book full cylinders to outstations and also arrange to collect empty cylinders received from outstations.

( 2 ) IN 1952, a scheme known as the Government of India Subsidised Housing Scheme for Industrial Workers was formulated. Under the scheme, houses were to be constructed by Government and allotted to industrial, workers. To regulate allotment of such houses in Delhi, the Delhi Subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme (Allotment of Houses) Rules 1963 were made. It is common ground that both under the scheme and the rules the allotment of a house could be made only to a worker as defined in the Factories Act, and he could retain it only till such time as he continued to fulfil that requirement.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was allotted a house covered by the scheme on 5th August 1958. It was situated in an Industrial Housing Colony built by the Government at Karampura, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. Simultaneously, two other booking sircars employed by the company were allotted houses in that colony.

( 4 ) TILL the beginning of 1961, all three of them occupied their respective houses without any further questions being asked. But, in the early part of that year, the Estate Manager of the colony received an anonymous complaint against one of them (not the petitioner) to the effect that he was neither a worker within the meaning of the Factories Act nor covered by the Employees State Insurance Scheme. So the Estate Manager inquired from the company, the employer, whether the three booking sircars had ceased to be workers under the Factories Act. The company replied that there had been no change in the nature of duties of these three employees, and that all its employees working in its factory were covered under the Factories Act . There was further correspondence in the course of which the company admitted that the three booking sircars were not covered by the Employees State Insurance Scheme. Ultimately, the petitioner s allotment was cancelled on 28th August 1961, and he was directed to vacate the house within fifteen days.

( 5 ) AS a result of further representations being made on behalf of the petitioner, the whole question was referred to the Chief Inspector of Factories for his opinion. In a note recorded on 2nd November 1961, the Chief Inspector said :

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . it is clear that the booking sircars have little connection with the manufacturing process. They also do not work inside the factory premises. Therefore they are not considered to fall within the definition of the term "worker" under the Factories Act.

( 6 ) THE petitioner then filed a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge directed against the order by which his allotment was cancelled. That suit was dismissed for default of appearance on 16th May

( 7 ) PROCEEDINGS for eviction, under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act 1958, were started against the petitioner in 1963. The Estate Officer came to the conclusion that a booking sircar was not a worker and, hence, made an order of eviction on 22nd September, 1966. In appeal, the Additional District Judge concurred with the view of the Esta,te Officer and made an order of dismissal on 18th





















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
whatsapp-icon Back to top