http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: 1340 SHRI CHINTAMAN RAO & ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/02/1958

BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. IMAM, SYED JAFFER

CITATION:  1958 AIR  388            1958 SCR 1340

ACT: Worker-Test for determining-Sattedars contracting to  supply bidis  to  bidi  factory and coolies  of  such  Sattedars-If workers  in the factory-Factories Act (LXIII of  1948),  SS. 2(1), 62, 63 and 92.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant was the manager of a bidi factory  which  had contracts  with  certain independent contractors,  known  as Sattedars, for the supply of bidis.  The Sattedars undertook to  supply  the  bidis by manufacturing them  in  their  own factories  or by entrusting the work to third parties, a’  a price  to.  be  paid by the management  after  delivery  and approval.   The Inspector of Factories found working in  the appellant’s factory certain Sattedars and their coolies  who had  come  to  deliver  bides  manufactured  by  them.   The appellant   was  prosecuted  and  convicted  under  s.   92, Factories Act for violation of the provisions of ss. 62  and 63 for failure to maintain the register of adult workers and for  allowing  the workers to work in  the  factory  without making  beforehand  the entries of their attendance  in  the register : Held, that the Sattedars and their coolies were not  workers within the definition in S. 2(1) of the Act and,  therefore, the  noninclusion  of  their names in the  register  or  the absence  of  entries  in  regard to  them  therein  did  not constitute an offence under s. 92 of the Act.  To  determine whether a person employed is a worker the test is whether or not the employer had control and supervision over the manner in  which the work was to be done.  The Sattedars  were  not under  the  control  of the  factory  management  and  could manufacture  the bidis wherever they pleased.   The  coolies were  neither employed by the management directly  nor  were they employed by the management through the Sattedars. Dharangadhara  Chemical Works Ltd. v. State  of  Saurashtra, [1957] S.C.R. 152, applied.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 93  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

1955. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated September  16  1954,  of the former  Nagpur  High  Court  in Criminal  Revision  No.  295 of 1954,  arising  out  of  the judgment  and  order  dated March 8,  1954,  of  the  Second Additional  Sessions Judge at Sagar in Criminal  Appeal  No. 368 of 1953, against  the order dated August 5, 1953, of the Judge Magistrate, Sagar, in Criminal Case No, 146 of 1953. 1341 N.   C. Chatterjee and Rameshwar Nath, for the appellants. I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 1958.  February 18.  The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUBBA  RAO  J.-This  appeal by  Special  Leave  is  directed against the Order of the High Court of Judicature at  Nagpur and  raises  the  question of construction of  some  of  the provisions of the Factories Act (LXIII of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).  Before posing the questions raised it would be convenient and useful at the outset to state the facts  either  found by the High Court or  admitted  by  the parties. Messrs.   Brijlal  Manilal  and Company is  a  bidi  factory situated in Sagar.  The 1st Appellant, Chintamanrao, is  the Managing-Partner  of  the  firm  while  the  2nd  appellant, Kantilal,  is its active Manager.  The Company  manufactures bidis.  The process of manufacture, so far as is relevant to the question raised, is carried out in two stages. The first stage: The management enters into a contract  with independent contractors, known as Sattedars, for the  supply of bidis locally.  The documents embodying the terms of  the contract entered into by the Sattedars were not produced  in the case.  But the terms of the contract are not in dispute. The Management supplies tobacco to the Sattedars and in some cases  bidi leaves.  Some of the Sattedars maintain a  small factory  where  they  get  bidis  manufactured  by  engaging coolies.   Others give tobacco and bidi leaves to  outsiders who  prepare bidis in their houses.  After bidis are  rolled in the Sattedars collect the bidis so manufactured and  take them  to the factory directly or through coolies where  they are sorted and checked by the workers in, the factory.   The selected or approved bidis are separately packed in  bundles of  10 and 25 and taken by the Sattedars or the  coolies  in gauze  trays to tandul and left there.  The rejected  bidis, commonly  known  as  I chhant’ are again  rebundled  by  the Sattedars and delivered to the factory. 1342 The   management  pays  the  Sattedars  the  cost   of   the manufacture  of bidis after deducting therefrom the cost  of tobacco  supplied to them.  Thereafter the second  stage  of the process of the manufacture begins in the factory.  It is carried  out  exclusively by the labourers employed  in  the factory.   It  consists of warming of bidis to  give  taste, wrapping  them  in  tissue  papers,  labelling  and  finally bundling them in the ’Pudas’.  The finished product is  then marketed.   From  the  aforesaid  description  of  the  dual process  of  manufacture  of bidis it  is  manifest  that  a Sattedar  is only an independent contractor, who  undertakes to  do a specific job of work, i. e., the supply  of  bidis, directly or indirectly through his coolies, by manufacturing them either in his own factory or by entrusting the work  to third parties, at a price to be paid by the management after delivery and approval.  He (Sattedar) or his coolies neither work in the appellants’ factory nor are they subject to  the supervision  or control of the appellants.  The  coolies  or the  third parties, to whom the work of making of  bidis  is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

entrusted  by the Sattedars, are employed by  the  Sattedars and  are  paid by them.  None of them works in  the  factory though  they  bring  bidis to the factory  for  delivery  in accordance  with the terms of the contract.  It may also  be pointed  out that the factory employs workers who are  under the direct control and supervision of the factory management and  who  attend  to  the second  part  of  the  process  of manufacture described above.  On December 9, 1952, Sri B. V. Desai,  the Inspector of Factories, Madhya Pradesh,  Nagpur, visited  the  factory  at  5-30 p. m. At  the  time  of  his inspection he found the following persons in the factory 1.   Pirbaksha, son of Amir. 2.   Abdul Sagir, son of Sk.  Alam. 3.   Deviprasad, son of Uddam. 4.   Ramshankar, son of Mulchand. 5.   Gopal, son of Mulchand. 6.   Nirpat, son of Bhagirath. 7.   Rameband, son of Gyan. 8.   Gotiram, son of Lila. 9.    Basodi, son of Gulu,                             1343 Of the aforesaid persons, Deviprasad, Nirpat and Gotiram are Sattedars   and  the  rest  are  coolies  employed  by   the Sattedars.   The  Inspector found the  first  seven  persons sorting out bidis and packing them into bundles of 10 and 25 in  the premises and the last two bringing the bidis to  the room  in jali for warming.  The said facts  are  practically admitted by some of the aforesaid persons, who gave evidence in  the  case,  and they explained that  they  came  to  the factory on that day for delivering the bidis manufactured by them to the factory. Thereafter   the  Chief  Inspector  of  Factories  filed   a complaint  in  the  Court of  the  Judge-Magistrate,  Sagar, against  the appellants for violation of the  provisions  of ss.  62 and 63 of the Act, under the former for  failure  to maintain  the  register  of  adult  workers  with  all   the prescribed  entries duly filled in and under the latter  for allowing  the workers to work in the factory without  making beforehand  the entries of their attendance in the  register of  adult workers.  The Judge-Magistrate, Sagar,  held  that the  appellants contravened the provisions of the  aforesaid sections  and on that finding convicted them under s. 92  of the Act and directed them to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and Rs. 25 respectively.   On  appeal the  Second  Additional  Sessions Judge, Sagar, confirmed the conviction of the 2nd  appellant for  contravening  the provisions of ss. 62 and 63  but  set aside  that  of  the 1st appellant in regard to  s.  62  but confirmed the conviction for contravening s. 63 of the  Act. The  Revision Petition filed by the appellants in  the  High Court  of Judicature at Nagpur was dismissed.  As  aforesaid with  Special  Leave of this Court, this  appeal  was  filed against the Order of the High Court. The  conflicting contentions of the parties may  briefly  be stated.   The  learned counsel for the  appellants  contends that a Sattedar is an independent contractor, who undertakes to  do  a  specific job of work for  other  persons  without submitting  himself  to their control, and that  he  or  his employee  is not a worker within the definition of s. 2  (1) of the ’Act and therefore the appellants are not under  duty to 1344 comply  with  the conditions of ss. 62 or 63 in  respect  of them.  Whereas the learned Counsel for the State argues that the definition of the word ’worker’ is comprehensive  enough to  take  in all persons who work in  the  factory,  whether

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

employed by the factory or not. The   answer   to  the  question  raised  turns   upon   the construction  of the relevant provisions of the  Act.   They read: Section 62.  Register of adult workers The  manager of every factory shall maintain a  register  of adult workers, to be available to the Inspector at all times during  working hours, or when any work is being carried  on in the factory, showing- (a)  the name of each adult worker in the factory; (b)  the nature of his work; (e)  the group, if any, in which he is included (d)  where his group works on shifts, the relay to which he is allotted; (e) such other particulars as may be prescribed: Provided  that,  if  the Inspector is of  opinion  that  any muster roll or register maintained as part of the routine of a factory gives in respect of any or all the workers in  the factory the particulars required under this section, he may, by  order  in  writing,  direct that  such  muster  roll  or register shall to the corresponding extent be maintained  in place  of, and be treated as, the register of adult  workers in that factory. Section  63.  Hours of work to correspond with notice  under Section 61 and register under Section 62.- No adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in  any factory  otherwise  than in accordance with  the  notice  of periods of work for adults displayed, in the factory and the entries made before-hand against his name in the register of adult workers of the factory. Section 92.  General penalty for offences. Save  as  is otherwise expressly provided in  this  Act  and subject  to  the  provisions of section 93,  if  in,  or  in respect of, any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any 1345 rule  made  thereunder  or of any  order  in  writing  given thereunder,  the occupier and manager of the  factory  shall each   be   guilty  of  an  offence  and   punishable   with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months  or with  fine which may extend to five hundred rupees  or  with both,   and   if  the  contravention  is   continued   after conviction, with a further fine which may extend to seventy- five  rupees for each day on which the contravention  is  so continued.  Section  2(1) worker’ means 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 manufacturing process, or  in any other kind of work incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing  process, or the subject of the  manufacturing process. Section  2(m)  "factory" means any  premises  including  the precincts thereof- (i)  Whereon  ten  or  more workers  are  working,  or  were working  on any day of the preceding twelve months,  and  in any  part of which a manufacturing process is being  carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on, or (ii) Whereon  twenty  or more workers are working,  or  were working  on any day of the preceding twelve months,  and  in any  part of which a manufacturing process is being  carried on  without  the aid of power, or is ordinarily  so  carried on.............. .................. . Section  2(n) "occupier " of a factory means the person  who has    ultimate   control   over   the   affairs   of    the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

factory.................................................... The  gist  of  the  aforesaid  provisions  relevant  to  the question  raised  may  be  stated thus:  The  Manager  of  a factory-factory  is  defined under the Act as  the  premises wherein a specified number of workers are working and in any part of which a manufacturing process is carried on, with or without the aid of power-shall maintain a register of  adult workers  working  in  that factory,  showing  the  necessary particulars mentioned in s. 62 of the Act.  No adult  worker shall be required or allowed to work in any such 1346 factory  otherwise  than in accordance with  the  notice  of periods of work for adults displayed in the factory and  the entries made beforehand against his name in the register  of adult workers of the factory.  If there is any contravention of  the said provisions, the occupier, who is defined  as  a person  who  has ultimate control over the  affairs  of  the factory,  and the manager are guilty of offences  punishable under the Act. Admittedly  the names of the 9 persons, stated  supra,  were not  entered in the register of adult workers maintained  by the  factory.   Neither any notice of the  periods  of  work allotted  to  them  was displayed in  the  factory  nor  any entries made beforehand against their names in the  register of adult workers of the factory.  The appellants, therefore, would have certainly contravened the provisions of the  Act, if, in fact, the said persons were workers in the factory as defined Under the Act. This takes us to the consideration of the definition of  the term ’ worker’ under the Act.  ’Worker’ is defined to mean a person employed, directly or through any agency, whether for wages  or not, in any manufacturing process.  It is  and  it cannot   be  disputed  that  the  making  of  bidis   is   a manufacturing process.  But is a Sattedar a person ’employed ’,  directly  or through agency, within the meaning  of  the definition " employed".  The concept of employment  involves ’three  ingredients: (1) employer (2) employee and  (3)  the contract  of employment.  The employer is one  who  employs, i.e.,  one who engages the services of other  persons.   The employee  is  one  who  works for  another  for  hire.   The employment  is the contract of service between the  employer and the employee hereunder the employee agrees to serve  the employer subject to his control and supervision.  Can it  be said  that a Sattedar is employed by the management  of  the factory  to  serve  under it ? There is  a  well  understood distinction  between a contractor and a workman and  between contract  for service and contract of service.  In  Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (Third Edition, Volume 1, Page 616)  the distinction 1347 between  a contractor and a workman is brought out  in  bold relief in the following manner: "  Of  course,  every person who  makes  an  agreement  with another for the doing of work is a contractor, in a  general sense; but as used in Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 Vict., c. 37), s. 4 "contractor" and "WORKMAN" "have come to  have  a more restricted and  distinctive  meaning,"  and "contractor " means ’one who makes an agreement to carry out certain work specified, but not on a contract of service’." The same idea is repeated in a different terminology thus.. "  A  ’contractor’  is a person who, in the  pursuit  of  an independent business, undertakes to do specific jobs of work for  other  persons,  without submitting  himself  to  their control in respect to the details of the work ". There  is,  therefore,  a clear-cut  distinction  between  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

contractor  and  a  workman.  The identifying  mark  of  the latter   is  that  he  should  be  under  the  control   and supervision of the employer in respect of the details of the work.   This Court in Dharangadhara Chemical Works  Ltd.  v. State of Saurashtra (1) in the context of the definition  of " workman " under the Industrial Disputes Act (XIV of  1947) made the following observations at page 157: " The essential condition of a person being a workman within the  terms of this definition is that he should be  employed to  do the work in that industry, that there should  be,  in other  words, an employment of his by the employer and  that there  should be the relationship between the  employer  and him as between employer and employee or master and  servant. Unless a person is thus employed there can be no question of his  being  a workman within the definition of the  term  as contained in the Act." Elaborating the point further, Bhagwati J. who (I) [1957] S.C.R. 152. 171 1348 delivered  the judgment on behalf of the Court proceeded  to state: "The  test which is uniformly applied in order to  determine the  relationship is the existence of a right of control  in respect of the manner in which the work is to be done." After  considering the Case-law on the subject  the  learned Judge restated the principle at page 160 thus: " The principle which emerges from these authorities is that the   prima  facie  test  for  the  determination   of   the relationship between master and servant is the existence  of the  right in the master to supervise and control  the  work done by the servant not only in the matter of directing what work  the servant is to do but also the manner in  which  he shall do his work, or to borrow the words of Lord Uthwatt at page  23  in  Mersey Docks and Harbour Board  v.  Coggins  & Griffith  (Liverpool ) Ltd., and another ([1947] 1 A. C.  1, 23),  "The  proper  test is whether or  not  the  hirer  had authority  to control the manner of execution of the act  in question." After noticing the subsequent trend of decisions wherein  it is observed that the test of control is not one of universal application, the learned Judge expresses his view thus: "  The  correct method of approach, therefore, would  be  to consider  whether  having regard to the nature of  the  work there    was   due   control   and   supervision   by    the employer............................. " There  is no reason why the test laid down by this Court  in the  context  of  the  definition  of  ’workman’  under  the Industrial  Disputes  Act  of 1947,  cannot  be  invoked  or applied  for  ascertaining whether a person  is  a  ’worker’ under  the Act.  If the test be applied, it is not  possible to hold that Sattedars in the present case, having regard to the  nature of the work under. taken by them and  the  terms whereunder  their  services were engaged, are  "  workers  " within the meaning of the definition under the Act.  It  has been  established in the present case that the  Sattedar  is only an independent contractor and the agreement 1349 between  the  management and the Sattedar is only  that  the Sattedar  should  receive tobacco from  the  management  and supply  them rolled in bidis for consideration.  He  is  not under  the  control  of the factory management  and  he  can manufacture bidis wherever he pleases.  It is immaterial  to the management whether he makes the bidis in his own factory or  distributes tobacco to different individuals for  making

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

bidis  under a separate agreement entered into by  him  with them.    The  management  cannot  regulate  the  manner   of discharge  of his work.  His liability is discharged by  his supplying  bidis  and delivering them in the  Factory.   The terms  of  the  contract  between  the  management  and  the Sattedar, as disclosed in the evidence, do not enjoin on the latter  to work in the factory.  His only obligation  is  to deliver  bidis at the factory.  That would be an  obligation imposed  on  any  contractor who undertakes  to  supply  and deliver  the goods to the other party.  We, therefore,  hold that  the  Sattedars in this case were not employed  by  the management as workers but were only independent  contractors who performed their part of the contract by making bidis and delivering them at the factory. If the Sattedars, i. e., three out of the nine persons found at  the factory, were not workers within the meaning of  the Act, can it be said that the other persons, who were coolies employed  by the Sattedars to enable them to keep  up  their contract with the management of the factory, were workers as defined  under  the Act?  A "worker"  under  the  definition means a   person  employed, directly or through any  agency. The words I directly or through any agency   indicate   that the employment is by the management directly or through some kind  of  employment agency and in either case  there  is  a contract  of employment between the management and the  per. sons employed.  Admittedly the coolies were not employed  by the  management;  there was DO privity of  contract  between them  and  the  management.  It is  not  disputed  that  the coolies were not employed by the Sattedars for or on  behalf of the management of the factory.  They were employed by the Sattedars on 1350 their own account and they paid them for the work  extracted from  them.  On the aforesaid facts it is obvious  that  the coolies  were  not employed by the management  directly  nor were  they employed by the management through the agency  of Sattedars.   If so, it follows that coolies employed by  the Sattedars  are  not  workers  within  the  meaning  of   the definition in the Act. The evidence discloses a third category of persons who  took some part in the manufacturing process of bidis.  They  were the  persons to whom the Sattedars distributed  tobacco  for making bidis in their respective homes.  It does not  appear from the evidence that any one of the nine persons found  in the  factory  belongs to that category.   That  apart  those persons  cannot,  in any sense of the term,  be  called  the persons  employed by the management directly or through  any agency. That that should be the construction of the provisions of s. 2 (1) of the Act is reinforced by other relevant  provisions of the Act.  Chapter 6 is headed " Working hours of Adults". Section 51 prescribes the weekly hours of work for a worker. Section  52 provides that no adult worker shall be  required or allowed to work in a factory on the first day of the week and  if he is made to work on that day for the  substitution of   another  holiday  in  its  place.   Section  53   gives compensatory  holiday to a worker who is made to work  on  a regular  holiday.  Section 54 fixes the daily hours of  work and s. 55 intervals for rest.  Section 56 limits the  spread over  of period of work for an adult worker to 10 1/2  hours in  a day, including the intervals for rest.   Sections  57, 58, and 59 deal with night shifts prohibition of  overlaping shifts  and extra wages for overtime.  Section 60  prohibits double employment, i. e., employment of the same worker in a factory  on any day on which he has already been working  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

any other factory.  Section 61 enjoins on the management  of the factory to display and maintain the notice of periods of work  for adults, showing clearly for every day the  periods during  which the adult workers may be required to work  and directs 1351 that the said notice shall be such that the workers  working for  those periods would not be working in contravention  of any of the provisions of ss. 51,52, 54, 55, 56 and 58 of the Act.   Section  62,  for  breach  of  which  provisions  the prosecution was launched in the present case, imposes a duty on  the manager of every factory to maintain a  register  of adult workers, showing the name of each adult worker in  the factory, the nature of his work, the group, if any, in which he  is included, where his group works on shifts, the  relay to which he is allotted and such other particulars as may be prescribed.  Section 63 directs that the hours of work of an adult worker should correspond with the particulars given in the  notice  under  s.  61 and the  register  under  s.  62. Section  92  constitutes  the contravention of  any  of  the provisions  of  the  Act or any  rules  made  thereunder  an offence  punishable with imprisonment or fine or with  both. The  scheme of the aforesaid provisions indicates  that  the workmen in +,he factory are under the direct supervision and control  of the management.  The conditions of  service  are statutorily  regulated and the management is to  conform  to the  rules  laid  down at the risk of  being  penalised  for dereliction of any of the statutory duties.  The  management obviously  cannot  fix the working hours,  weekly  holidays, arrange  for  night shifts and comply with  other  statutory requirements, if the persons like the Sattedars, working  in their  factories  and getting their work done by  others  or through coolies, are workers within the meaning of the  Act. It is Well nigh impossible for the management of the factory to  regulate  their  work or to comply  with  the  mandatory -provisions  of  the Act.  The said  provisions,  therefore, give  a clear indication that a worker under the  definition of the Act is a person who enters into a contract of service under  the  management and does not include  an  independent contractor or his coolies or servants who are not under  the control and supervision of the employer. There  is a conflict of decisions between the Allahabad  and the  Nagpur High Courts on the construction of s. 2  (1)  of the Act.  A Divisional Bench of the 1352 Nagpur   High  Court  in  Provincial   Government,   Central Provinces  and Berar v.Robinson (1) considered the scope  of the definition of the word " worker " in the Factories  Act. There the facts were: On November 10, 1943, a new battery of boilers was being erected on the premises of the  Jubbulpore Electric  Supply  Co. in order to supply energy to  the  New Ordnance  Factory  at Khamaria.  The work  of  erection  was entrusted  to Messrs.  Babcock and Wilcox of Calcutta.   The persons  who  were employed by Messrs.  Babcock  and  Wilcox were  found working in the premises of the  Electric  Supply Co. in contravention of the provisions of the Factories Act. The  question  was whether the employees of  an  independent contractor  were  workers as defined under s. 2 (1)  of  the Act.  Pollock J. who delivered the judgment of the  Division Bench stated at page 44 thus: " The definition of " worker " is a very wide one, and it is wide  enough, in our opinion, to include per. sons  employed in repairing machinery or putting up new machinery, even  if such a machinery is not in actual use at the time.  " It may be noticed that no contention was raised in that case

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

that the persons found in the factory were not the employees of  Jubbulpore Electric Supply Co. The only question  raised and  decided was whether the persons employed  in  repairing the  machinery  or  putting up new  machinery  were  persons engaged in any manufacturing process or any work  incidental to  or connected with it.  The question now raised  was  not before the learned Judge and therefore there was no occasion for  them to express any opinion thereon.  The fact that  if this question was raised and decided in the way we did,  the conclusion  of the learned Judges would have been  different cannot  make the said decision an authority on a  point  not raised or decided upon by the learned Judges. Another  Bench  of  the Nagpur High Court in  The  State  v. Jiwabhai (2) gave a wide connotation to the word"  employed" under s. 66(1)(b) of the Factories (1) I.L.R. [1947] Nagpur 43. (2) I.L.R. [1953] Nagpur 67. 1353 Act.   The learned Judges observed that the word "  employed ", in their opinion, did not only connote employed on  wages but also being occupied or engaged in some form of activity. If  the learned Judges meant by that observation that  if  a person  is  found,  engaged in some form of  activity  in  a factory,  irrespective of whether there was any contract  of employment  or  not between him and the employer,  he  is  a worker,  we should express our respectful dissent  from  the said observation.  But, on the other hand, if they had  only emphasized on the fact, which is obvious from the provisions of  s. 2(1), that the employment need not be for wages,  the statement is unobjectionable. The decision in State v. Shri Krishna Prasad Dar need not be considered in detail as the learned Judges therein  accepted the   same  interpretation  that  we  have  placed  on   the provisions of s. 2(1) of the Act and came to the conclusion, on  the  facts of that case, that the persons  therein  were workers of the factory. We,  therefore,  hold  that neither the  Sattedars  nor  the coolies found by the Inspector to be working in the  factory were workers, as they were not employed by the factory. As  they were not workers, the non-inclusion of their  names in  the  register  of adult workers or the  absence  of  any entries  in  regard to them in the said register  would  not constitute an offence under s. 92 of the Act. Before  leaving  this  case  we  would  like  to  make   one observation.   Our  decision is not intended to lay  down  a general  proposition that under no circumstances a  Sattedar can  be considered to be a worker within the meaning of  its definition  in the Act.  Whether a particular person,  under whatever  designation  he may be known, is a worker  or  not under the Act depends upon the terms of the contract entered into between him and the employer.  In the case before us no attempt  has been made by the prosecution to establish  that the Sattedars were employed by the (1)  A.I.R. [1954] Allahabad 44. 1354 management   for  doing  work  in  the  factory.   The   un- contradicted   evidence  is  that  they   were   independent contractors who came to the factory to deliver the bidis  or sent  their  coolies  to  do the  same.   Our  decision  is, therefore, confined to the facts of this case. In  the  result  we  allow the  appeal  and  set  aside  the convictions of the appellants under B. 92 of the Act and the sentences  imposed  upon them.  The fines if paid,  will  be refunded. Appeal allowed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

1355