Factories Act worker test: contractor-managed labour did not make pepper-processing premises a factory.

Pepper garbling and packing was treated as a manufacturing process under the Factories Act, but the premises could not be classified as a factory unless the statutory threshold of workers was satisfied. The court construed "worker" to mean a person employed by, or through the agency of, the person having ultimate control over the concern, not every person physically present on the premises. As the labourers were engaged and paid by a contractor, with no control shown on the petitioner's part, they were not the petitioner's workers. In the absence of the required workers and any applicable notification, the prosecution under Sections 6, 7 and 92 failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the premises where pepper was being garbled and packed constituted a factory under the Factories Act, 1948; whether the persons engaged in that work were workers employed by the petitioner within the meaning of the Act; and whether the petitioner's failure to comply with the registration, licensing and notice requirements attracted liability under Section 92 of the Act.

Analysis: The definition of factory under Section 2(m) requires, in the present case, not merely a manufacturing process carried on without power, but also that 20 or more workers be working on the premises. The process of washing, cleaning, garbling and packing pepper was held to amount to a manufacturing process under Section 2(k). However, the word "worker" in Section 2(l) was construed in context to mean a person employed by the person having ultimate control over the business concern, directly or through an agency, and not every person physically working on the premises. The evidence showed that the 23 labourers were engaged and controlled by the contractor, who undertook to garble the pepper at a fixed rate and paid their wages himself, while the petitioner had no control over them. On that footing, those labourers were not workers employed by the petitioner. The special provision in Section 85 also indicated that where persons working at a place are not employed by the owner, the Act applies only by notification. No such notification had been issued. The presumption under Section 103 could not assist the prosecution because it presupposes the existence of a factory. Accordingly, the statutory ingredients for treating the premises as a factory were not made out.

Conclusion: The premises were not shown to be a factory within the Act, the persons engaged were not the petitioner's workers, and the prosecution for contravention of Sections 6 and 7 read with Section 92 failed.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the petitioner was acquitted, with refund of the fine if realised.

Ratio Decidendi: For the Factories Act, "worker" denotes a person employed by or through the agency of the person having ultimate control over the concern, and a premises cannot be treated as a factory unless the statutory number of such workers is established.

---