Case: State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. M.P. Singh &amp; Others

2. The United Provinces Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1947 was enacted to regulate the hours of employment and certain other conditions of employment in shops and commercial establishments. Commercial Establishment is defined by S. 2 cl. (3) of the Act. By S. 12 of the Act, provision is made for giving to the employees a weekly holiday besides holidays which may be granted under S. 11. Section 13 provides for granting ordinary, casual and "sickness leave". Section 26 requires the employer to maintain such registers and records and to display such notices as may be prescribed and S. 27 penalises contraventions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.3. The Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) owns a factory at Chhitauni for manufacturing sugar. The three respondents are respectively the General Manager, Assistant Manager and Secretary of the company. The company employees certain classes of field workers to guide, supervise and control the growth and supply of sugarcane for use in the Factory. The Deputy Chief Inspector of Shops and Commercial Establishment, Uttar Pradesh, fild three complaints against the respondents in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Deoria, charging them with contravention of the provisions of Ss. 12, 13 and 26 of the Act in respect of certain field workers employed by the company for guiding, supervising and controlling the growth and supply of sugarcane. The respondents contended that the Act did not apply to those employees as they were workers within the meaning of the Factories Act and accordingly exempt from the operation of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate rejected the contention and convicted the respondents of contravention of S. 26 of the Act and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 30 in each of the three cases. Against the orders of conviction and sentence, the respondents preferred revision applications to the Court of Session at Deoria. The Sessions Judge disagreed with the view of the trial Magistrate and referred the cases to the High Court at Allahabad recommending that the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate be set aside. The High Court accepted the references and ordered that the respondents be acquitted.4. By the definition of a Commercial Establishments in S. 2 cl. (3) of the Act, the clerical and other establishments of a factory to whom the provisions of the Factorised Act, 1934 do not apply, are included in the connotation of that expression. It is true that the reference in the definition by which clerical and other establishments of factories are included is to the Factories Act of 1934, but by virtue of S. 8 of the General Clauses |Act X of 1897, it must be construed as a reference to the provisions of the Factories Act LXIII of 1948 which repealed the Factories Act of 1934 andit. The contention raised by the State by special leave, that since the repeal of the Factories Act, 1934, in the definition of Commercial Establishment in S. 2. cl. (3) are included all clerical and other establishments of a factory without any exemption has therefore no force.

Court's reasoning:
6. The High Court was of the view that the Supervisors and Kamdars connected with the subject of manufacturing process, namely sugarcane, were workers within the meaning of the Factories Act and accordingly they were excluded from the definition of Commercial Establishment under the Act. However, even if the Supervisors and Kamdars were employed "in any other kind of work connected with the subject of manufacturing process", unless they were employed in the factory, the provisions of the Factories Act do not apply to them, there is no dispute that they are employees of a Commercial Establishment within the meaning of the Act.7. The High Court was therefore in error in acquitting the respondents of the offences of which they were convicted by the trial Magistrate. The orders of acquittal passed by the High Court are set aside and the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Magistrate are restored. In view of the order of this Court dated October 1, 1956, made at the time of granting special leave, the respondents are entitled to their costs of hearing in this Court.