TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court clarifies worker status under Factories Act, 1948.</h1> The Supreme Court held that Pandurang was not a 'worker' under the Factories Act, 1948, as there was no contract of service and lack of control and ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether Pandurang was a 'worker' within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948.2. Whether Pandurang was entitled to leave wages under Section 80 of the Factories Act, 1948.Detailed Analysis:1. Whether Pandurang was a 'worker' within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948:The appellant argued that Pandurang was not a worker as defined under Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948. The appellant contended that there was no master-servant relationship between him and Pandurang due to the lack of supervision and control over Pandurang's work. The established facts included:- No contract of service existed.- Pandurang was not bound to fixed hours or days of work.- He could work at his convenience, even from home.- Payment was made based on the quantity of bidis produced, with no minimum quantity stipulated.The High Court had previously rejected this argument, holding that Pandurang was a worker. However, the Supreme Court, upon reviewing the facts, found that the appellant did not exercise the requisite control and supervision over Pandurang's work. The Court emphasized that employment involves a contract of service where the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to control and supervision. The Court concluded that Pandurang was working with the permission of the owner, not under a contract of employment, and thus was not a worker under the Act.2. Whether Pandurang was entitled to leave wages under Section 80 of the Factories Act, 1948:The appellant contended that even if Pandurang was considered a worker, the provisions of Sections 79 and 80 of the Act were inapplicable. The argument was that it was impossible to calculate the number of days Pandurang worked or his full-time earnings for those days due to the nature of his work arrangement.The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Sections 79 and 80, which deal with annual leave with wages and the calculation of wages during the leave period. The Court noted that the calculation of leave and leave wages requires a definite period of work per working day, which was not applicable in Pandurang's case due to his irregular work schedule.The Court further explained that 'full-time earnings' refer to earnings for a standard amount of working time, which could not be determined in Pandurang's case. Consequently, the Court found that the provisions about leave and leave wages could not be applied to Pandurang, reinforcing the conclusion that he was not a worker under the Act.Separate Judgment by Subba Rao, J.:Subba Rao, J. dissented, holding that the case was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Birdhi Chand Sharma v. First Civil Judge, Nagpur. He argued that the appellant's factory exercised sufficient control and supervision over the bidi rollers, making them workers under the Act. He emphasized that the appellant engaged the labourers, supplied materials, maintained records of their work, and supervised the quality of the bidis produced. Subba Rao, J. concluded that the workers were entitled to leave wages under Sections 79 and 80 of the Act.Conclusion:In accordance with the majority opinion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's order, and acquitted the appellant. The fine, if paid, was ordered to be refunded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
