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

1959 Supreme(All) 68

M.C.DESAI
HARI KRISHNA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.N.Katju, J.N.AGARWAL

M. C. DESAI, J.

( 1 ) THE two applicants, who are partners of a firm owning premises in which the manufacturing process of converting paddy into rice by mechanical power is being carried on, have been convicted under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The first question is whether the premises are a factory or not. It is admitted by the applicants that they have employed seven workmen in the manufacturing process. When the premises were inspected by the Factory Inspector he found twenty workmen in the premises. Seven were admittedly the workers employed by the applicants for the manufacturing process and ten have been found by the courts below not to have been so employed. The remaining three persons were, according to the applicants, employed temporarily to repair the compressor which had gone out of order, but the manufacturing process was going on. Since the three men were employed in repairs of the compressor, which are incidental or connected with the manufacturing process, they have been held to be workers within the meaning of section 2 (k) of the Factories Act; I do not see anything wrong. Consequently there were ten workers working in the premises and the premises are a fact






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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top