BIRDHICHAND SHARMA Vs. FIRST CIVIL JUDGE NAGPUR
LAWS(SC)-1960-12-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on December 09,1960

BIRDHICHAND SHARMA,STATE OF BOMBAY Appellant
VERSUS
FIRST CIVIL JUDGE,NAGPUR,FIRST CIVIL JUDGE, NAGPUR Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

GUJARAT BEEDI KARKHANA OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-1970-10-11] [REFERRED]
A M MAZDOOR BIRI COMPANY KAIPERGANJ VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL III ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1965-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
PALASA CASHEW MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION PALASA VS. CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1963-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
MADURAI GENERAL WORKERS UNION VS. BRINDA TEXTILES HANDLOOM FACTORY [LAWS(MAD)-1967-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
DHANLAKSHMI WEAVING WORKS VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(KER)-1965-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
PADMINI PRODUCTS VS. E S I CORPN [LAWS(KAR)-2000-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER RAMKRISHNA RAMNATH BIDI FACTORY VS. SMALL CAUSE COURT NAGPUR [LAWS(BOM)-1962-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH MATCH INDUSTRIES VS. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION [LAWS(MAD)-1998-11-71] [REFERRED TO]
Q-793 MADATHUPATTI WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2001-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION VS. CIPLA LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1996-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD VS. ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2004-4-140] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR MAHASANGH VS. TAPAN CHATTERJEE and CO [LAWS(BOM)-2005-7-131] [REFERRED TO]
RAM LAKHAN SINGH VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(P&H)-1988-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LTD VS. LABOUR COURT [LAWS(P&H)-1992-3-64] [REFERRED TO]
SILVER JUBILEE TAILORING HOUSE VS. CHIEF INSPECTOR OF SHOPS AND ESTABLISHMENTS [LAWS(SC)-1973-9-18] [REFERRED . (1961) 3 SCR 161: : (1961) 2 LAB LJ 86]
MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKS M SARVETHAM KAMATH D C DIWAN MOHIDEEN AND SONS DHANUSHKODI VILAS CIGAR CO PATEL BROS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA UNION OF INDIA DAVINDRA TRADING CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1974-1-13] [EXPLAINED .(1961) 3 SCR 161 : : (1961) 2 LAB LJ 86]
DIV MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. A SANKARALINGAM [LAWS(SC)-2008-10-38] [REFERRED TO]
C E S C LIMITED VS. SUBHASH CHANDRABOSE [LAWS(SC)-1991-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR BALAJI WAJE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-1961-10-12] [REFERRED]
BHIKUSA YAMASA KSHATRIYA PRI LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1963-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
P M PATEL AND SONS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1985-9-14] [AFFIRMED]
DEVINDER SINGH VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SANAUR [LAWS(SC)-2011-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF D G DEWAN MOHIDEEN SAHIB AND SONS IN C A NO 721 OF 63 JANAB S AHMED HUSSAIN AND SONS IN C A NO 791 OF 63 VS. SECRETARY UNITED BEEDI WORKERS UNION SALEM IN BOTH THE APPEALS :SECRETARY UNITED BEEDI WORKERS UNION SALEM IN BOTH THE APPEALS [LAWS(SC)-1964-4-41] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF KERALA VS. R E DSOUZHA [LAWS(SC)-1971-2-27] [FOLLOWED]
TOURISM CORPORATION OF GUJARAT LTD VS. KALU VALJI JETHWA [LAWS(GJH)-2007-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
I C I INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-4-121] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB KHADI MANDAL VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND [LAWS(P&H)-1995-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
SIMLA DEVI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(P&H)-1996-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR SINGH VS. R S E B [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-5-137] [REFERRED TO]
SMADH BHAI MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-178] [REFERRED TO]
DHANALAKSHMI WEAVING WORKS KAKKAT CANNANORE VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER TRIVANDRUM [LAWS(KER)-1962-8-24] [REFERRED TO]
SESHAN V MANAGER UMAYAL WEAVING VS. INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES [LAWS(KER)-1966-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN BEEDI DEPOT VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CALICUT [LAWS(KER)-1973-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESI CORPN VS. RAMLAL TEXTILES [LAWS(KER)-1990-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
VANNAN POTTAVILAI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2012-9-168] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT VS. VALIBEN HARIBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2012-3-107] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-132] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. Y.RAMACHANDER [LAWS(APH)-2012-2-113] [REFERRED TO]
BLOCK DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT OFFICER CUM EXECUTIVE OFFICER VS. BALBIR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2014-1-56] [REFERRED TO]
AMBADAS RAMBHAU GUJAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1965-7-14] [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL MANAGER & ORS. VS. STATE OF J&K & ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2010-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
DEVINDER SINGH VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SANAUR [LAWS(SC)-2011-4-168] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-449] [REFERRED TO]
M/S PUNJAB BEARING INDS. (P) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH [LAWS(CE)-2001-10-445] [REFERRED TO]
SREEKANTA SAHA VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [LAWS(CAL)-1990-4-43] [REFERRED TO]
K. ABDUL AZEEZ SAHIB AND SONS, FOUR HORSE BEEDI MANUFACTURERS AND ORS. VS. THE UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AFFAIRS AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1972-9-56] [REFERRED]
MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMGAR UNION VS. CIPLA LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1996-8-122] [REFERRED]
HONORARY SECRETARY VS. PREFULLA W/O LATE KRISHNA SHETTY [LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-127] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Wanchoo, J. - (1.)This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial matter. The appellant is the manager of a biri factory in Nagpur. Respondents 2 to 4 are working in that factory. They applied for leave for fifteen days from December 18, 1955, to January 1, 1956, and did not go to work during that period. The appellant did not pay their wages for these days and in consequence they applied to the Payment of Wages Authority (hereinafter called the Authority) for payment to them of wages which had been withheld. Their claim was that they were entitled to fifteen days' leave in the year under Ss. 79 and 80 of the Factories Act, 1948. The Authority allowed the claim and granted them a sum of Rs. 90/6/- in all as wages which had been withheld for the period of leave. Thereupon, the appellant filed an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court at Nagpur. His main contention was that respondents 2 to 4 were not workers within the meaning of the Factories Act and could not therefore claim the benefit of S. 79 thereof. The respondents contended that they were workers within the meaning of the Factories Act and were entitled to the sum awarded to them by the Authority. The High Court on a consideration of the circumstances came to the conclusion that respondents 2 to 4 were workers under S. 2(1) of the Factories Act and therefore the order of the Authority was correct and dismissed the petition. The appellant then applied for a certificate to appeal to this Court which was refused. He then obtained special leave from this Court and that is how the matter has come up before us.
(2.)Section 2 (1) defines a worker to mean a person employed, directly or through 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. The main contention of the appellant is that respondents 2 to 4 are not employed in the factory within the meaning of that word in S. 2(1). Reliance in this connection is placed on two decisions of this Court, namely, Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. vs. State of Saurashtra, (1957) SCR 152 and Chintaman Rao vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1958) SCR 1340.
(3.)In Dharangadhara Chemical Works, (1957) SCR 152, this Court held with reference to S. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which defined "workman" that the word "employed" used therein implied a relationship of master and servant or employer and employee and it was not enough that a person was merely working in the premises belonging to another person. A distinction was also drawn between a workman and an independent contractor. The prima facie test whether the relationship of master and servant or employer and employee existed was laid down as the existence of the right in the employer not merely to direct what work was to be done but also to control the manner in which it was be done, the nature or extent of such control varying in different industries and being by its nature incapable of being precisely defined. The correct approach therefore to the question was held to be whether having regard to the nature of the work, there was due control and supervision of the employer.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.