https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288641 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. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Jun 2025 12:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288641 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Dec 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288641