Case: Chintaman Rao &amp; Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

S. 62. Section 92 constitutes the contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or any rules made thereunder an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine or with both. The scheme of the aforesaid provisions indicates that the workmen in the factory are under the direct supervision and control of the management. The conditions of service are statutorily regulated and the management is to conform to the rules laid down at the risk of being penalised for dereliction of any of the statutory duties. The management obviously cannot fix the working hours, weekly holidays, arrange for night shifts and comply with other statutory requirements, if the persons like the Sattedars, working in their factories and getting their work done by others or through coolies, are workers within the meaning of the Act. It is well nigh impossible for the management of the factory to regulate their work or to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act.The said provisions, therefore, give a clear indication that a worker under the definition of the Act is a person who enters into a contract of service under the management and does not include an independent contractor or his coolies or servants who are not under the control and supervision of the employer.16. There is a conflict of decisions between the Allahabad and the Nagpur High Courts on the construction of S. 2 (1) of the Act. A Divisional Bench of the Nagpur High Court in Provincial Government, Central Provinces and Berar v. Robinson, ILR (1947) Nag 43: (AIR 1947 Nag 83) (C), considered the scope of the definition of the word "worker" in the Factories Act. There the facts were : On November 10, 1943, a new battery of boilers was being erected on the premises of the Jubbulpore Electric Supply Co. in order to supply energy to the New Ordnance Factory at Khamaria. The work of erection was entrusted to Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox of Calcutta. The persons who were employed by Messrs. Babcock and Wilcox were found working in the premises of the Electric Supply Co. in contravention of the provisions of the Factories Act. The question was whether the employees of an independent contractor were workers as defined under S. 2 (1) of the Act. Pollock, J. who delivered the judgment of the Division Bench stated at p. 44 (of ILR Nag): (at p. 84 of AIR), thus :"The definition of "worker" is a very wide one, and it is wide enough, in our opinion, to include persons employed in repairing machinery or putting up new machinery, even if such a machinery is not in actual use at the time."It may be noticed that no contention was raised in that case that the persons found in the factory were not the employees of Jubbulpore Electric Supply Co. The only question raised and decided was whether the persons employed in repairing the machinery or putting up new machinery were persons engaged in any manufacturing process or any work incidental to or connected with it. The question now raised was not before the learned Judge and therefore there was no occasion for them to express any opinion thereon. The fact that if this question was raised and decided in the way we did, the conclusion of the learned Judges would have been different cannot make the said decision an authority on a point not raised or decided upon by the learned Judges.17. Another Bench of the Nagpur High Court in The State v. Jiwabhai, ILR (1953) Nag 67: (AIR 1953 Nag 172) (D), gave a wide connotation to the word "employed" under S. 66 (1) (b) of the Factories Act. The learned Judges observed that the word "employed", in their opinion, did not only connote employed on wages but also being occupied or engaged in some form of activity. If the learned Judges meant by that observation, that if a person is found engaged in some form of activity in a factory, irrespective of whether there was any contract of employment or not between him and the employer, he is a worker, we should express our respectful dissent from the said observation. But, on the other hand, if they had only emphasized on the fact, which is obvious from the provisions of S. 2 (1), that the employment need not be for wages, the statement is unobjectionable.18. The decision in State v. Shri Krishna Prasad, AIR 1954 All 44 (E), need not be considered in detail as the learned Judges therein accepted the same interpretation that we have placed on the provisions of S. 2 (1) of the Act and came to the conclusion, on the facts of that case, that the persons therein were workers of the factory.19. We, therefore, hold that neither the Sattedars nor the coolies found by the Inspector to be working in the factory were workers, as they were not employed by the factory.20. As they were not workers, the non-inclusion of their names in the register of adult workers or the absence of any entries in regard to them in the said register would not constitute an offence under S. 92 of the Act.21. Before leaving this case we would like to make one observation.Our decision is not intended to lay down a general proposition that under no circumstances a Sattedar can be considered to be a worker within the meaning of its definition in the Act. Whether a particular person, under whatever designation he may be known, is a worker or not under the Act depends upon the terms of the contract entered into between him and the employer.In the case before us no attempt has been made by the prosecution to establish that the Sattedars were employed by the management for doing work in the factory. The uncontradicted evidence is that they were independent contractors who came to the factory to deliver the bidis or sent their coolies to do the same. Our decision is, therefore, confined to the facts of this case.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]12. There is no reason why the test laid down by this Court in the context of the definition of workman under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947, cannot be invoked or applied for ascertaining whether a person is a worker under the Act. If the test be applied, it is not possible to hold that Sattedars in the present case, having regard to the nature of the work undertaken by them and the terms whereunder their services were engaged, are "workers" within the meaning of the definition under the Act.It has been established in the present case that the Sattedar is only an independent contractor and the agreement between the management and the Sattedar is only that the Sattedar should receive tobacco from the management and supply them rolled in bidis for consideration. He is not under the control of the factory management and he can manufacture bidis wherever he pleases.It is immaterial to the management whether he makes the bidis in his own factory or distributes tobacco to different individuals for making bidis under a separate agreement entered into by him with them.The management cannot regulate the manner of discharge of his work. His liability is discharged by his supplying bidis and delivering them in the factory. The terms of the contract between the management and the Sattedar, as disclosed in the evidence, do not enjoin on the latter to work in the factory.His only obligation is to deliver bidis at the factory. That would be an obligation imposed on any contractor who undertakes to supply and deliver the goods to the other party.We, therefore, hold that the Sattedars in this case were not employed by the management as workers but were only independent contractors who performed their part of the contract by making bidis and delivering them at the factory.13.If the Sattedars, i.e., three out of the nine persons found at the factory, were not workers within the meaning of the Act, can it be said that the other persons, who were coolies employed by the Sattedars to enable them to keep up their contract with the management of the factory, were workers as defined under the Act?A "worker" under the definition means a person employed, directly or through any agency.The words directly or through any agency indicate that the employment is by the management directly or through some kind of employment agency and in either case there is a contract of employment between the management and the persons employed. Admittedly the coolies were not employed by the management; there was no privity of contract between them and the management.It is not disputed that the coolies were not employed by the Sattedars for or on behalf of the management of the factory. They were employed by the Sattedars on their own account and they paid them for the work extracted from them.On the aforesaid facts it is obvious that the coolies were not employed by the management directly nor were they employed by the management through the agency of Sattedars. If so, it follows that coolies employed by the Sattedars are not workers within the meaning of the definition in the Act.14. The evidence discloses a third category of persons who took some part in the manufacturing process of bidis. They were the persons to whom the Sattedars distributed tobacco for making bidis in their respective homes. It does not appear from the evidence that any one of the nine persons found in the factory belongs to that category. That apart those persons cannot, in any sense of the term, be called the persons employed by the management directly or through anyscheme of the aforesaid provisions indicates that the workmen in the factory are under the direct supervision and control of the management. The conditions of service are statutorily regulated and the management is to conform to the rules laid down at the risk of being penalised for dereliction of any of the statutory duties. The management obviously cannot fix the working hours, weekly holidays, arrange for night shifts and comply with other statutory requirements, if the persons like the Sattedars, working in their factories and getting their work done by others or through coolies, are workers within the meaning of the Act. It is well nigh impossible for the management of the factory to regulate their work or to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act.The said provisions, therefore, give a clear indication that a worker under the definition of the Act is a person who enters into a contract of service under the management and does not include an independent contractor or his coolies or servants who are not under the control and supervision of the employer.The decision in State v. Shri Krishna Prasad, AIR 1954 All 44   (E), need not be considered in detail as the learned Judges therein accepted the same interpretation that we have placed on the provisions of S. 2 (1) of the Act and came to the conclusion, on the facts of that case, that the persons therein were workers of the factory.19. We, therefore, hold that neither the Sattedars nor the coolies found by the Inspector to be working in the factory were workers, as they were not employed by the factory.20. As they were not workers, theof their names in the register of adult workers or the absence of any entries in regard to them in the said register would not constitute an offence under S. 92 of the Act.