http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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

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

                           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.