The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Factories Act and the principles regarding the relationship of master and servant, control and supervision of employer over workmen, and the distinction between independent contractors and workmen under the Factories Act.

1. This revision petition is against the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal and Special First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode in C. C. 191/63 convicting the petitioner who is the manager of the Umayal Weaving Establishment, Factory No. 2, Cannanore for failure to submit the returns for the half year ending 3171963 as enjoined under sub-rule 3 of R.127 of the Kerala Factories Rules, punishable under S.92 of the Factories Act. It is admitted that the particular return was not sent. The case of the accused was that the Factories Act does not apply to his establishment and that no offence is committed. So the question that arises in the case is whether the Umayal Weaving Establishments No. 2 is a factory as envisaged under the Factories Act, 1948.

2. The complainant was examined as Pwl. In his evidence he has proved Ex. P1 the notice calling upon the accused to send the half yearly return. As it was not sent a show cause notice Ex. P2 was sent. Ex. P3 is the reply sent by the accused in connection with factory No. 2 where the accused has stated that 'by over sight the half yearly returns in form No. 22 in respect of factories Nos.1 and 2 have not been submitted. We regret the inconvenience caused to you', and he had enclosed the half yearly returns. Ex. P4 is the return in form No. 33 in respect of factory No. 2. Ex. P5 is the application for registration, and grant or renewal of licence for the year 1963 in form No. 2 sent by the accused in connection with factory No. 2. In his 342 statement the accused did not put forward the plea that his establishment does not come within the term 'factory' as envisaged in the Factories Act or rules. The accused on the other hand admitted that he has sent all the returns properly except the concerned one and stated that it was unfortunate that the returns due on 317 1963 could not be sent at the proper time.

3. Dwl is a clerk in the office of No.1 factory. When examined he stated that both factories Nos.1 and 2 are having one and the same office and that the office is situated in No.1 establishment at Narayana Park, Cannanore. No. 2 establishment is at Kakkat, Cannanore. In answer to a leading question by the defence counsel in examination-in-chief the witness stated that there is no employer-employee relationship between the workers and the management and that the workers are a miscellaneous hetrogenous and irregular group of piece workers with no specific hours of work or control over the regularity of attendance or the nature of quantum of work to be done. When he was questioned why then licence was taken he gave the answer that it was because of fear of prosecution and not because it is conceded that the establishments are factories.

4. In cross-examination it was brought out that the working time of the workmen is between 2 a. m. to 5-30 p. m., lunch time specified is between 12 and 1 p. m. and during the forenoon workmen are given 15 minutes and in the afternoon again another 15 minutes is allowed for taking tea and the witness admitted that a bell would be rung. Dwl was the person who had typed out the notice of the periods of work. The statement sent to the Factory Inspector containing the specified periods of work is Ex. P7. He admitted that the workmen are working in accordance with the specified periods of work contained in Ex. P7. Explaining the nature of the work, Dwl admitted that there is a designer for the factory who draws the design given by the management and after it is approved workers are given such designs and asked to work according to these designs. The witness has further deposed that there are attendance registers for the workmen in which if any worker comes late, late mark is recorded. The witness admitted that there were, standing orders for the establishment. There was a weaving master and maistries and it was the duty of the maisteries to supervise the workers whether the workers are working without damaging the cloth, whether they were working in accordanc