iminal Appeals Nos 205 and 206 of 1968
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 21 1968 of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Revision Petitions Nos 415 and 416 of 1967
DP Singh and M R K Pillai for the appellants in both the appeals
712 GB Pai P N Tiwari O C Mathur and Bhajar Ram Rakhiani for the respondent in both the appeals
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri CJ
These appeals are on certificates granted by the High Court of Kerala
The only question in these appeals is whether the workmen doing work in the premises of the res pondent are workers within the meaning of Sec
21 of the 
Section 21 of the reads as follows Worker  means a person employed directly or through any agency whether for wages or not in any manufacturing process or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process or in any other kind of work incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process or the subject of the manufacturing process The respondent was convicted under Sec
92 of the for using a building as a factory without obtaining the previous permission in writing of the Chief Inspector of Factories for failing to apply for registration and grant of licence for the factory and for failing to maintain a muster roll of the workers employed in the factory in one case and for failing to give attendance cards to every person employed in the factory in the other case
The respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 20 in each case
He was also directed under Sec102 of the to rectify the defects within a specified period
The respondent filed a Revision Petition in the High Court
The High Court held that the work that was being carried out in the premises of the respondent amounted to manufacturing Process
This question has not been debated before us
The High Court further held that the workmen working in the premises of the respondent were not workers  within the meaning of Sec 2 1 of the 
It is this part of the decision that has been  challenged in appeal by the State of Kerala
The nature of the work done was described in a letter pro duced by the prosecution
This letter is not printed on the record but the High Court summaries the document as follows This document shows that as and when catches of prawns are made a consignment of prawns is brought to the premises in a lorry at any time of the day or the night that the women and girls of the locality who form a casual heterogeneous miscellaneous and irre gular group come at their convenience and do the peeling washing etc at piece rates and that there are no specified hours of work nor is there any control by the Petitioner over the irregularity and attendance or of the nature manner or quantum of their work
The same workers after finishing the work in the premises of the petitioner go to other similar premises in the locality where other lorry loads of prawns are taken
In other words if more prawns are caught at a particular time they are brought and distributed among several premises are brought and distributed among several premises like the Petitioner s and the local women and girls collect at the several premises and do the work at piece rates
The same workers do not go to the same premises on different occasions and the owners of the several
premises do not have any control over the manner or quantum of work these women and girls do  The rates of remuneration naturally depend upon the quantity of prawns available the number of women and girls that come to do the work  the hour of the day or the night when the catches arrive etc
Sometimes for days no work is done in the premises
 The High Court after referring to the decisions of this Court in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd V State of Saurashtra1 a decision under the Industrial Disputes Act Chintaman Rao  Another V The State of Madhya Pradesh1 and
State of Kerala vs V M Patel1
decisions under the  held It will be apparent that the women and girls who assemble and do the work when a catch of prawns is brought to the premises of the petitioner are not workers  coming within the definition of the 
The Petitioner does not insist a to who should do the job or how it should be done he only wants the work to be done for the agreed remuneration without spoiling the prawns ie within a short time
A quantity of prawns is taken for peeling cleaning washing etc
by a particular individual for a fixed remuneration and that individual with the assistance of others whom she employs finishes the job as quickly as possible  The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that it was erroneous on the part of the High Court to have applied the 1  2  3 1960 KLJ 1524 714 decision of this Court in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd Disputes Act to the definition of worker  in the 
He fairly pointed out that another Division Bench applied the same test in a dispute arising under the 
see Birdhkhand Sharma vs First Civil Judge Nagpur 2 
But nevertheless he urged that we should refer the case to a larger Bench
We see nothing wrong in the decision of this Court in Chintaman Rao  Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh3
On the contrary we are of the opinion that the case has been rightly decided
The scheme of the clearly shows that the test adopted by this Court is the correct one
It would be impossible to apply many provisions of the to the workers  of the type we are concerned with here if we were to hold that they were workers  within the definition of the 
We are really surprised that the High Court certified this case to be a fit case for appeal to this Court
After this Court had laid down a test to be applied for determining who were workers  within the meaning of the  the High Court should have treated the question of principle as no longer open
The High Court had certified the case to be fit for appeal as it felt that the question involved is of general importance in the State
If the question of principle has been settled by this Court the application of the principle to the facts of a particular case does not make the question a fit one for the Supreme Court within Article 1341c of the Constitution
In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed
R K P section Appeals dismissed


Summary:
After catches of prawns made from time to time were brought to the respondent s premises a casual and irregular group of women and girls of the locality came at their convenience to do the peeling washing etc
at piece rates
There were nospecified hours of work and after finishing their work the workers would go on to do similar work at other premises in the locality
The respondent s conviction under section 92 of the FactoriesAct for inter alia using his premises as a factory without obtainingregistration etc
was set aside in revision by the High Court on the viewthat the workers in question were not workers within the meaning of the 
On appeal to this Court HELDThe High Court had rightly decided that the workers in the present case were not workers covered by section 21 of the 
714 C Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd vs State of Saurashtra AIR  Chintaman Rao  Another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh   State of Kerala vs V M Patel 1960 K L J 1524 and Birdhichand Sharma vs First Civil Judge Nagpur   applied
Obiter  After this Court had laid down a test to be applied for determining who were workers within the meaning of the  the High Court should have treated the question of principle as no longer open
The High Court had certified the case to be fit for appeal as it felt that the question involved is of general importance in the State
If the question of principle has been settled by this Court the application of the principle to the facts of a particular case does not make the question a fit one for the Supreme Court within Article 1341 c of the Constitution
714 D