1957 (12) TMI 37 - HC - Indian Laws

Factories Act conviction overturned as prosecution failed to prove employment relationship under Sections 6, 7, and 92

V.M. Patel Versus Inspector of Factories, Alwaye

Kerala HC set aside petitioner's conviction under Sections 6 and 7 read with Section 92 of the Factories Act. Court held prosecution failed to prove the ... Conviction of the petitioner for offences under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 and also under Section 7 road with Section 92 of the Factories Act - determination of petitioner's business operations fell under the purview of the Factories Act - Compliance with Sections 6 and 7 of the Factories Act - Meaning of word 'employ' - Definition of 'Worker' - HELD THAT:- The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that these persons were really employees under the petitioner. On the other hand, the evidence on record is such as to lead to a contrary conclusion. P. W. 3 is the only witness who has given evidence as to the circumstances under which 23 persons were found to be engaged in the process of garbling pepper when P. W. 1 visited the premises of the Gujrat Travancore Agency on 10-11-1953. The utmost that can be said in favour of the prosecution evidence is that the 23 persons employed by P. W. 3 for garbling pepper were working at the premises of the Gujrat Travancore Agency with the permission of the petitioner. Even if it were so the provisions of the Factories Act could be made applicable to such premises only after the issue of a notification as contemplated by Section 85 of the Act. The prosecution has no case that any such notification has been published in respect of the Gujrat Travancore Agency. Thus, as matters stood at the relevant period, the Factories Act was not applicable to the petitioner's firm so as to make it obligatory on the part of the petitioner to comply with the requirements of the several provisions of the Act. It follows, therefore, that the petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act or of Rules 3, 4 and 12 off the Rules framed thereunder, cannot amount to the commission of any offence punishable under Section 92 of the Act. This work was not connected with the manufacturing process carried on by the company in connection with the printing of those volumes, but had to be done by the contractor outside the premises of the company. Without the knowledge of the manager of the company, the contractor brought some workers on the company's premises on a holiday and engaged them in the work of binding the printed volumes. In the result, this revision petition is accepted and the conviction entered against the accused-petitioner and the sentence awarded to him by the lower court, are set aside and he is acquitted of the offences charged against him in this case. The amount of fine, if realised, will be refunded. Issues Involved:1. Definition of 'Factory' under the Factories Act.2. Definition of 'Worker' under the Factories Act.3. Applicability of the Factories Act to the petitioner's business.4. Compliance with Sections 6 and 7 of the Factories Act.5. Interpretation of employment and control over workers.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Definition of 'Factory' under the Factories ActThe primary issue was whether the petitioner's premises qualified as a 'factory' under the Factories Act. The definition under Clause (m) of Section 2 states that a factory is any premises where:- 10 or more workers are working with the aid of power, or- 20 or more workers are working without the aid of power.The court noted, 'The prosecution has no case that at the premises of the Gujarat Travancore Agency any manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power.' Therefore, the focus was on whether 20 or more workers were engaged without the aid of power.2. Definition of 'Worker' under the Factories ActThe court examined whether the individuals engaged in the petitioner's premises were 'workers' as defined in Clause (1) of Section 2. The definition includes any person employed, directly or through any agency, whether for wages or not, in any manufacturing process. The court emphasized, 'It is enough if the person concerned is shown to be engaged in any of the items of work specified in the definition.'3. Applicability of the Factories Act to the Petitioner's BusinessThe court had to determine if the petitioner's business operations fell under the purview of the Factories Act. The court found that the process of garbling pepper, which includes washing, drying, and winnowing, constitutes a 'manufacturing process' as defined in Clause (k) of Section 2. However, it was crucial to establish whether the individuals performing these tasks were employed by the petitioner.4. Compliance with Sections 6 and 7 of the Factories ActSections 6 and 7 mandate the occupier to obtain prior permission and provide written notice before using any premises as a factory. The petitioner admitted non-compliance but argued that his premises did not qualify as a factory. The court noted, 'If the evidence on record is sufficient to make out that the petitioner is running a factory as defined in the Factories Act, the conviction entered against him by the lower courts has only to be confirmed.'5. Interpretation of Employment and Control Over WorkersThe court scrutinized whether the 23 individuals engaged in garbling pepper were employed by the petitioner. The court observed, 'The work of garbling pepper had been given by the petitioner to P.W. 3 under a contract.' It was P.W. 3 who employed and paid these workers. The court concluded, 'It is impossible to hold that the 23 persons mentioned in the mahazar Ext. A and the list Ext. B were persons employed by the petitioner.'The court further clarified that the Factories Act could not be applied unless the workers were employed by the person having ultimate control over the business. The court stated, 'It follows, therefore, that these 23 persons were not 'workers' under the Gujrat Travancore Agency and that the firm could not be deemed to be a 'factory' as defined in the Factories Act.'Conclusion:The court concluded that the petitioner's premises did not qualify as a factory under the Factories Act because the individuals engaged in the manufacturing process were not employed by the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner's failure to comply with Sections 6 and 7 of the Act did not constitute an offense. The court stated, 'The petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act or of Rules 3, 4, and 12 of the Rules framed thereunder, cannot amount to the commission of any offense punishable under Section 92 of the Act.'Judgment:The revision petition was accepted, and the conviction and sentence awarded by the lower court were set aside. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges, and any fine paid was ordered to be refunded.