PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M. P. SINGH AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
15/12/1959
BENCH:
SHAH, J.C.
BENCH:
SHAH, J.C.
SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)
GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.
SUBBARAO, K.
GUPTA, K.C. DAS
CITATION:
1960 AIR 569 1960 SCR (2) 605
CITATOR INFO :
F 1966 SC1995 (5)
R 1967 SC1364 (9)
R 1978 SC 849 (5,7)
ACT:
Commercial Establishment-Field Workers of a Sugar Factory-
If workers of a Commercial Establishment-United Provinces
Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No.
XXII of 1947), s. 2(3), Factories Act, 1948 (Act LXIII of
1948), s. 2(1).
HEADNOTE:
The three respondents, who were the General Manager, the
Assistant Manager and the Secretary of the Laxmi Devi Sugar
Mills Ltd., were charged under ss. 12, 13 and 26 of the
United Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment Act,
1947, for contravening the provisions of the Act relating to
holidays, leave and maintenance of certain registers
regarding a class of field workers employed by the company
to guide, supervise and control growth and supply of sugar
cane for use in the factory. It was contended on their
behalf that those employees were workers within the meaning
of the Factories Act and the United Provinces Shop and
Establishment Act did not apply to them. The Judicial
Magistrate rejected that contention and convicted the
respondents under S. 26 of the Act and sentenced them to pay
a fine of Rs. 30 each. On a reference by the Sessions judge
recommending that the said convictions and sentences may be
set aside, the High Court acquitted the respondents. The
State Government appealed to this Court by Special Leave.
Held, that the order of acquittal passed by the High Court
was erroneous.
The provisions of the Factories Act were intended to benefit
only workers employed in a factory and since field workers
guiding, supervising and controlling growth and supply of
sugar cane for use in the factory were not employed in the
factory, the Factories Act did not apply to them and they
fell within the definition of ” Commercial Establishment ”
under the United Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment
Act, 1947.
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 157
and 158 of 1957 and 5 of 1958.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
October 31, 1955, of the Allahabad High Court, in Criminal
Reference Nos. 28, 29 and 30 of 1955, arising out of the
judgment and order dated December 18, 1954, of the Sessions
Judge, Deoria, in Criminal Revisions Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of
1954.
606
G. C. Mathur, C. P. Lal and G. N. Dikshit, for the
appellant.
W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondents.
1959. December 15. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
SHAH J.-The question which falls to be determined in this
group of appeals is whether field workers, i.e., Supervisors
and Kamdars employed by a sugar factory to guide, supervise
and control the growth and supply of sugarcane for use in
the, sugar factory are employees of a ‘ Commercial
Establishment’ with in the meaning of the United Provinces
Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, XXII of 1947 (herein-
after referred to as the Act). The Magistrate who tried the
respondents for offences under s. 27 of the Act held that
the field workers were employees of a Commercial
Establishment. The High Court at Allahabad took a contrary
view, and the State of Uttar Pradesh has appealed to this
court against the order of the High Court with special leave
under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
The United Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment Act,
1947 was enacted to regulate the hours of employment and
certain other conditions of employment in shops and
commercial establishments. Commercial Establishment is
defined by s. 2, cl. 3 of the Act. By s. 12 of the Act,
provision is made for giving to the employees a weekly
holiday besides holidays which may be granted under s. 11.
Section 13 provides for granting, ordinary, casual and ”
sickness leave.” Section 26 requires the employer to
maintain such registers and records and to display such
notices as may be prescribed and s. 27 penalises
contraventions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.
The Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to
as the company) owns a factory at Chhitauni for
manufacturing sugar. The three respondents are respectively
the General Manager, Assistant Manager and Secretary of the
company. The company employs certain classes of field
workers to guide,
607
supervise and control the growth and supply of sugarcane for
use in the Factory. The Deputy Chief inspector of Shops and
Commercial Establishment, Uttar Pradesh, filed three
complaints against the respondents in the court of the
Judicial Magistrate, Deoria, charging them with
contravention of the provisions of ss. 12, 13 and 26 of the
Act in respect of certain field workers employed by the
company for - guiding, supervising and controlling the
growth and supply of sugarcane. The respondents contended
that the Act did not apply to those employees as they were
workers within the meaning of the Factories Act and
accordingly exempt from the operation of the Act. The
Judicial Magistrate rejected the contention and convicted
the respondents of contravention of s. 26 of the Act and
sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 30 in each of
the three cases. Against the orders of conviction and
sentence, the respondents preferred revision applications to
the Court of Session at Deoria. The Sessions Judge
disagreed with the view of the Trial Magistrate and referred
the cases to the High Court at Allahabad recommending that
the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial
Magistrate be set aside. The High Court accepted the
references and ordered that the respondents be acquitted.
By the definition of a Commercial Establishment in s. 2 cl.
3 of the Act, the clerical and other establishments of a
factory to whom the provisions of the Factories Act, 1934,
do not apply, are included in the connotation of that
expression. It is true that the reference in the definition
by which clerical and other establishments of factories are
included is to the Factories Act of 1934, but by virtue of
s. 8 of the General Clauses Act X of 1897, it must be
construed as a reference to the provisions of the Factories
Act LXIII of 1948 which repealed the Factories Act of 1934
and re-enacted it. The contention raised by the State by
special leave, that since the repeal of the Factories Act,
1934, in the definition of Commercial Establishment in s. 2
cl. 3, are included all clerical and other establishments of
a factory without any exemption has therefore no force.
608
The Factories Act, 1948 defines a worker by s. 2 (1) as
meaning, it a person employed, directly or through any
“a person employed, directly or thought any agency, whether
for wages or not, in any manufacturing process or in
cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a
manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work
incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process,
or the subject of the manufacturing process.”
and a factory is defined by s. 2(m) as meaning any premises
including the precints thereof wherein a specified number of
workers on any day of the preceding twelve months is
employed. By the combined operation of these definitions,
persons employed in any manufacturing process or in cleaning
any part of the machinery or part of the premises used for
the manufacturing process or any other kind of work
incidental to or connected with the manufacturing process or
the subject of the manufacturing process are deemed to be
workers in a factory. By the use in s. 2 (1) of the
Factories Act of the expression, I employed in any other
kind of work incidental to or connected with the subject of
manufacturing process’, not only workers directly connected
in the manufacturing process, but those who are connected
with the subject of manufacturing process in a factory are
included. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this case to
decide the precise meaning of the expression I subject of
the manufacturing process’ in s. 2 cl. (1), because the
diverse provisions of the Factories Act are intended to
benefit only workers employed in a factory, i.e., in the
precincts or ‘premises of a factory. It is difficult to
hold that field workers who are employed in guiding,
supervising and controlling the growth and supply of
sugarcane to be used in the factory are employed either in
the precincts of the factory or in the premises of the
factory; and if these workers are not employed in a factory,
the-provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 do not apply to
them and they evidently fall within the definition of ‘
Commercial Establishment’.
The High Court was of the view that the Supervisors and
Kamdars connected with the subject of
609
manufacturing process, namely sugarcane, were workers within
the meaning of the Factories Act and accordingly they were
excluded from the definition of ‘ Commercial Establishment’
under the Act. However, even if the Supervisors and Kamdars
were employed in any other kind of work connected with the
subject of manufacturing process “, unless they were
employed in the factory, the provisions of the Factories Act
do not apply to them, there is no dispute that they are
employees of a ‘ Commercial Establishment’ within the
meaning of the Act.
The High Court was therefore in error in acquitting the
respondents of the offences of which they were convicted by
the Trial Magistrate. The orders of acquittal passed by the
High Court are set aside and the orders of conviction and
sentence passed by the Trial Magistrate are restored. In
view of the order of this Court dated October 1, 1956, made
at the time of granting special leave, the respondents are
entitled to their costs of hearing in this court.
Appeal allowed.