Worker status under factory law depends on control and supervision; bidi rollers outside the leave-wage scheme.

Bidi rollers were held not to be "workers" under section 2(1) of the Factories Act, because the arrangement lacked the contract of service and effective control and supervision characteristic of employment. The majority found they could attend and leave at will, were not bound by fixed hours, and were not subject to supervision over the manner or continuity of work. On that basis, sections 79 and 80 on annual leave with wages also did not apply, because the statutory leave-wage scheme presupposes fixed working periods and ascertainable qualifying days and earnings. The conviction was set aside; the dissent would have treated the rollers as workers and upheld liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether persons rolling bidis in the factory were "workers" within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948. (ii) Whether the provisions relating to annual leave with wages and leave wages under sections 79 and 80 applied so as to sustain the conviction under section 92 read with section 79(11) of the Factories Act, 1948.

Issue (i): Whether persons rolling bidis in the factory were "workers" within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948.

Analysis: The majority held that the definition of "worker" requires employment in a manufacturing process under a contract of service, with the employer retaining control and supervision over the manner of work. On the facts, the bidi rollers could attend and leave at will, were not bound to fixed hours, could be absent for extended periods, and were not under effective supervision as to the manner, hours, or continuity of work. The arrangement was treated as one of work done with permission or under agreement, not employment in the master-servant sense.

Conclusion: The persons rolling bidis were not workers within section 2(1), and this finding was in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisions relating to annual leave with wages and leave wages under sections 79 and 80 applied so as to sustain the conviction under section 92 read with section 79(11) of the Factories Act, 1948.

Analysis: The majority held that sections 79 and 80 presuppose a worker whose days of work can be computed by reference to fixed working periods under the factory notice system, and whose full-time earnings can be ascertained by reference to daily working hours. Since the bidi rollers were free to work when they pleased and were not subject to fixed working periods, neither the qualifying days under section 79 nor the leave wage calculation under section 80 could be applied in the ordinary statutory sense.

Conclusion: The leave-wage provisions did not apply on these facts, and the conviction could not stand, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted, while the dissenting opinion would have treated the bidi rollers as workers and upheld the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: A person is a worker under the Factories Act only where the engagement amounts to employment under a contract of service with sufficient control and supervision over the manner of work, and the leave-wage scheme applies only where the worker's qualifying days and full-time earnings can be determined within the statutory working-hours structure.

Dissenting Opinion: Subba Rao, J. held that the bidi rollers were workers because the management engaged and supervised them in a manner sufficient for section 2(1), and that sections 79 and 80 could apply by treating earnings during the factory working hours as full-time earnings. On that view, the appeal would have been dismissed.

---