Selective extension of factory labour protections upheld where rational classification and welfare objectives justified statutory coverage.

Section 85 of the Factories Act validly authorises selective extension of labour protections to establishments outside the ordinary factory definition where local conditions and worker safety justify intervention. The notification was sustained because it rested on a rational classification and did not discriminate under Article 14. The extension also did not impose an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g), since the Act is a welfare measure directed to health, safety and welfare in manufacturing work. The notification could validly extend the benefits of sections 79 and 80 to deemed workers who satisfied the statutory working-day conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether section 85 of the Factories Act, 1948 and the notification issued under it were discriminatory and offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether section 85 imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; (iii) whether the notification validly extended the benefit of sections 79 and 80 of the Factories Act, 1948 to deemed workers.

Issue (i): whether section 85 of the Factories Act, 1948 and the notification issued under it were discriminatory and offended Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 85 was enacted to enable extension of the protective provisions of the Act to places not strictly within the definition of a factory where the circumstances justified regulatory intervention. The power to select establishments for extension of the Act was not an arbitrary power to pick and choose between similarly situated owners, but a power to be exercised on the basis of local conditions and the need to protect workers in hazardous or vulnerable employments. The notification was issued on the basis of establishments already on the register of factories and was supported by a rational classification having regard to the situation created by the earlier judicial ruling and the need to maintain industrial peace.

Conclusion: section 85 and the notification did not violate Article 14 and were not discriminatory.

Issue (ii): whether section 85 imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Act is a welfare measure intended to secure the health, safety and welfare of persons engaged in manufacturing processes. The restrictions imposed on owners or occupiers are directed to that legitimate object and are not unreasonable merely because they extend statutory protections to persons who, though not strict employees, work in the establishment with permission or under agreement. The extension of protective provisions to such deemed workers advances the same legislative purpose and does not create an unconstitutional restraint on business.

Conclusion: section 85 did not authorise any unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' right to carry on business.

Issue (iii): whether the notification validly extended the benefit of sections 79 and 80 of the Factories Act, 1948 to deemed workers.

Analysis: Once a place is notified under section 85, it is deemed to be a factory and the persons working therein are deemed workers for the purposes of the Act. The benefit of annual leave with wages under section 79 and the corresponding wage provision in section 80 can apply where the deemed worker satisfies the working-day requirement contemplated by the Act. The fact that such workers are not bound by a conventional contract of service does not prevent them from earning those benefits if they satisfy the statutory conditions.

Conclusion: the notification could validly extend the relevant provisions, including sections 79 and 80, to deemed workers.

Final Conclusion: the statutory power under section 85 was upheld, the impugned notification was sustained, and the challenge to the legislative and executive action failed.

Ratio Decidendi: a welfare statute may validly authorise selective extension of protective labour provisions to establishments and workers outside the ordinary definition of the regulated class, provided the selection rests on a rational basis connected with the statutory object and does not impose an unreasonable restriction on the owner's right to carry on business.

---