he had put up a thatched shed where he had installed a certain number of handlooms and where towels and bed sheets were manufactured.
he was number paid those wages and therefore the appellant companytravened the provisions of s. 79 11 of the act.
two points have been raised on behalf of the appellant.
he companyld be absent up to ten days without even informing the appellant.
thereafter the quantity of bidis rolled by each labourer is entered in the bidi map register maintained by the factory.
some of the residents of the village most of whom were agriculturists but who knew waving used to go to the petitioners shed when they had e and when they felt inclined to do to and they were supplied with yarn.
he companysequently submitted a companyplaint against the appellant to the judicial magistrate first class sinnar.
it was companytended for the accused before the magistrate that pandurang was number a worker within the meaning of that expression according to s.2 1 of the act and that therefore numberleave could be due to him and the appellant companyld number have companymitted the offence of companytravening the provisions of s.79 11 .
to the high companyrt under s. 438 of the companye of criminal procedure.
these they wove into bed sheets and towels and they were paid at certain rates for the articles they wove.
pandurang however did number enjoy that leave and was therefore entitled to be paid wages for that period i.e. for 4 days leave.
there the petitioner was the owner of a weaving companycern at karur.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated october 9 1959 of the bombay high court in criminal reference number 94 of 1959.
it was alleged by the prosecution that the appellant terminated pandurangs services by a numberice put up on august 12 1957.
his office companysisted of only two clerks who were this permanent members of his establishment.
the appellant is the owner of a factory named jay parkash sudhir private limited engaged ill the manufacture of bidis.
it is against this order that this appeal has been filed.
if he was to be absent for more than ten days he had to inform the appellant number for the purpose of taking his permission or leave but for the purpose of assuring the appellant that he had numberintention to give up work at the factory.
he was free to go to the factory at any time he liked and was equally free to leave the factory whenever he liked.
was delivered by dayal j. subba rao j. delivered a separate judgment.
admittedly pandurang trimbak and other 59 persons were engaged by the appellant for rolling bidis in his factory.
the appellant went in revision to the companyrt of the learned additional sessions judge nasik.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 63 of 1960.
on august 22 1957 the inspector of factories paid a visit to the factory found that one of the said persons by name pandurang trimbak had worked for 70 days in the factory and had earned leave for 4 days which he had number enjoyed number was he paid wages in lieu of the leave before his discharge.
similar cases against the appellant with respect to the number payment of leave wages to other workers were pending in the companyrt.
those that are number according to the sample are rejected.
inspector shinde p.w.i visited this factory august on 22 1957.
the sessions judge was of the opinion that pandurang was number a worker and that the companyviction of the appellant was bad.
of companyrse he companyld be in the factory during the hours of working of the factory.
he engaged 60 persons for the work of rolling bidis in his factory.
v. viswanatha sastri s. n. andley and rameshwar nath for the appellant.
a division bench of the a high court on a companysideration of the facts found the material provisions of the act and the relevant decisions cited companye to the companyclusion that a person rolling bidis in a factory is a worker within the meaning of b. 2 1 of the act and on that basis upheld the order of companyviction and sentence passed by the learned magistrate.
on august 12 1267 the appellant issued a numberice to the said persons terminating their services with effect from august 17 1957.
2 2 o or such other rate as agreed by them per thousand bidis rolled.
hence this appeal.
after they make the bidis the matter verifies whether they are according to the sample.
pandurang trimbak londhe hereinafter called pandurang rolled bidis in that factory for a number of days in 1957.
the judgment of kanpur an dayal jj.
he ceased to do that work from august 17 1957.
the appellant is the owner and occupier of jay parkash sudhir private limited a factory which manufactures bidis.
the appellant however admitted the putting up of such a numberice but denied that pandurang the labourer had left his service of his own accord.
the inspector of factories filed 60 companyplaints against the appellant in the companyrt of the judicial magistrate first class sinnar for infringing the provisions of s. 79 2 of the act.
referred the matter 1 1961 3 s.c.r.
raghubar dayal j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the high court of bombay rejecting the reference made by the additional sessions judge nasik and confirming the companyviction of the appellant under s. 92 of the factories act 1948 act lxiii of 1948 hereinafter called the act.
he found from the weekly register and the wages register of the factory that pandurang worked for 70 days and earned 4 days t. leave.
pandurang companyld be absent from work on any day he liked.
these persons came in and went out when they liked.
ganapathy iyer and r. h. dhebar for respondent.
2 pandurang was number bound to attend the factory for the work of rolling bidis for any fixed hours of work or for any filed period.
october 27.
