Allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh v. M. P. Singh and Others

Supreme Court15 Dec 19591959 INSC 164 · [1960] 2 S.C.R. 6051959 INSC 164

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court held that field workers guiding sugar cane growth for a factory are not 'workers in a factory' under the Factories Act but fall under 'Commercial Establishment' under the U.P. Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, restoring the Trial Magistrate's conviction against the High Court's acquittal.

What did the court decide?

The order of acquittal passed by the High Court was set aside and the orders of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Magistrate were restored.

What the court decided

The State of Uttar Pradesh versus M. P. Singh and… — Service and Employment | Supreme Court (1960)

¶1

605

¶2

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶3

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

¶4

I959

¶5

¶6

M. P. SINGH AND OTHERS

¶7

, December I 5;

¶8

(B. P. SINHA, C.J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,

¶9

K. SuBBA RAo, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)

¶10

¶11

Commercial Establishment--Fie!d Workers of a Sugar Factory -If workers of a Commercial Establishment-United Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, I947 (U. P. Act No. XXII of z947), s. 2(3), Factories Act, z948 (Act LXIII of z948), s. 2(I).

¶12

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.

¶13

•

¶14

Held, that the order of acquittal passed by the High Court was erroneous.

¶15

¶16

The provisions of the Factories Act were intended to benefit only. workers employed in a factory and since field workers guidiug,_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.

¶17

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 157 and 158 of 1957 and 5 of 1958.

¶18

¶19

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 9of1954.

¶20

¶21

606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)] I959 G. 0. Mathur, 0. P. Lal and G. N. Dikshit, for the appellant. The State of Utiar Pradesh W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the v. respondents. M.P. Singh 1959. December 15. The Judgment of the. Court Shah]. 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' within the meaning of the United Provinces Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, XXII of 1947 (hereinafter 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.

¶22

< 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.

¶23

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,

SUPREME COURT REPORTS 607

¶28

S.C.R.

¶29

supervise and control the growth and supply of sugarcane for use in the Factory. The Deputy Chief Ins. pector of Shops and Commercial Establishment, Uttar Pradesh, filed three complaints against the respondents ill the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Deoria, charging them with contravention of the provisions ofss. 12, 13 and 26 of the Act in respect of certain field workers employed by the company for guiding, supervising and controlHng the growth and supply of sugarcane. The i·espondents 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.

¶30

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 Hl34, 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. .

¶31

:r959

¶32

The Stale of Uttar Pradesh

M.P. Singh

Shah].

608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2))

¶39

The Factories Act, 1948 defines a worker by s. 2 (1) as meaning,

¶40

'959

¶41

The State of Ullar Pradesh

¶42

Ullar Pradesh " a person employed, directly or through any v. agency, whether for wages or not, in any manufactur- Af.P. Singh ing process or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in Shah]. any other kind of work incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process, or the subject of the manufacturing process."

¶43

and a factory is defined by s. 2(m) as meaning any premises including the precincts 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 (I) of the Factories Act of the expression, '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 manufacturin& process in a factory are included. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this case to decide the precise meaning of the expression ' 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, HJ48 do not apply to them and they evidently fall within the definition of 'Commercial Establishment'.

¶44

¶45

The High Court was of the view that the Supervisors and Kamdars connected with the subject of

609

S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶50

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. .

¶51

.r959

¶52

TM State oj Ultar Pradesh v.

¶53

M. P. Singh

¶54

Shah].

¶55

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 I, 1956, made at the time of granting special leave, the respondents are entitled to their costs of hearing in this court.

¶56

Appeal allowed.

¶57

MINERAL DEVELOPMENT LTD.

¶58

.r959

¶59

¶60

THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

¶61

December .r5.

¶62

(B. P. SINHA, C.J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR,

¶63

K. SuBBA RAo, K. C. DAS GuPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)

¶64

¶65

Fundamental Rights-Restriction by State imposed by la1t1Reasonableness-Objective test-Duty of Court-Constitutionit validity-Bihar Mica Act, r947, s. 25(r)(c)-Constitution of India, Arts. Ig(r)(j), (g) and r9(5) & (6).

¶66

The Secretary of the Government of Bihar in the Revenue Department issued a notice to the petitioner company who were the lessees of mining lease, charging it with violation of ss. IO, 12 and 14 of the Bihar Mica Act, 1947, and calling upon it to show cause why action should not be taken to cancel its licence which was being issued from year to year for mining Mica. The company asked for particulars of the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act from the Government which was furnished. The company sent a written representation to the Government denying the allegations. After two years of the said representation, the Government issued a notification cancelling the

¶67

¶68

.,. •

The State of Uttar Pradesh v. M. P. Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

The State of Uttar Pradesh v. M. P. Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Messrs. Fedco (P) Ltd. & Another versus S. N. Bilgrami & Others

Narendra Kumar and Others versus the Union of India and Others

The State of Bihar versus Rai Bahadur Hurdut Roy Moti Lall Jute Mills & Another

Mineral Development Ltd. versus the State of Bihar and Another

Sri C. I. Emden versus the State of U. P.

Sardar Kapur Singh versus the Union of India