Worker status and earned leave under the Factories Act depend on supervision, control, and qualifying service, not piece-rate payment alone.

Employer supervision and control, assessed in light of the nature of the work, determine whether factory personnel are "workers" under Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948. Where workers must attend the factory, remain within factory hours, cannot substitute others, are subject to attendance recording and removal for absence, and their output may be rejected for non-compliance, they are not independent contractors but workers. Statutory leave under Section 79 accrues once the prescribed qualifying working days are met; piece-rate payment, freedom to remain absent, or longer absence does not forfeit leave already earned, though it may affect wages for time not worked.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the persons working in the biri factory were "workers" within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 or independent contractors. (ii) Whether entitlement to leave under Section 79 of the Factories Act, 1948 was lost because the workers were piece-rate workers and had remained absent for periods beyond the leave claimed.

Issue (i): Whether the persons working in the biri factory were "workers" within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 or independent contractors.

Analysis: The decisive test was whether the employer retained the right to direct not only what work was to be done but also to control the manner in which it was done, having regard to the nature of the work and the extent of supervision possible in that industry. On the facts, the workers had to work at the factory, attendance was recorded, they could not get the work done by others, they were subject to factory hours, their continued absence could result in removal, and the finished goods were liable to rejection if they did not meet the required standard. These circumstances negatived the character of an independent contractor and showed sufficient supervision and control to bring them within the statutory definition of worker.

Conclusion: They were workers within Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948, not independent contractors.

Issue (ii): Whether entitlement to leave under Section 79 of the Factories Act, 1948 was lost because the workers were piece-rate workers and had remained absent for periods beyond the leave claimed.

Analysis: Statutory leave under Section 79 accrues as a matter of right once the prescribed minimum working days are satisfied. The fact that the workers were paid on piece-rates, could absent themselves, or had remained absent for a longer period did not destroy the leave already earned. Their absence only affected wages for the period not worked and did not forfeit the statutory leave entitlement for the relevant calendar year, provided the qualifying working days were otherwise met.

Conclusion: The workers remained entitled to leave under Section 79 of the Factories Act, 1948.

Final Conclusion: The statutory definition of worker was held to cover the factory workers concerned, and their claim to earned leave was upheld, so the challenge to the payment order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In labour statutes of this kind, the existence of the employer's right of supervision and control, judged in the setting of the work itself, determines whether a person is a worker, and piece-rate payment or limited freedom of attendance does not by itself exclude statutory worker status or accrued leave rights.

---