state of kerala v. v. m. patel 1 .
the high companyrt after referring to the decisions of this court in dharangadhara chemical works limited v. state of saurashtra 1 a decision under the industrial disputes act chintaman rao anumberher v. the state of madhya pradesh 1 and.
the nature of the work done was described in a letter pro duced by the prosecution.
appeal from the judgment and order dated february 21 1968 of the kerala high companyrt in criminal revision petitions number.
in other words if more prawns are caught at a particular time they are brought and distributed among several premises are brought and distributed among several premises like the petitioners and the local women and girls collect at the several premises and do the work at piece rates.
p. singh and m. r. k. pillai for the appellants in both the appeals .
415 and 416 of 1967.
b. pai p. n. tiwari o. c. mathur and bhajar ram rakhiani for the respondent in both the appeals .
205 and 206 of 1968.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeals number.
2 1 of the factories act 1948.
by a particular individual for a fixed remuneration and that individual with the assistance of others whom she employs finishes the job as quickly as possible the learned companynsel for the appellant companytended that it was erroneous on the part of the high companyrt to have applied the a.i.r.
a quantity of prawns is taken for peeling cleaning washing etc.
the petitioner does number insist a to who should do the job or how it should be done he only wants the work to be done for the agreed remuneration without spoiling the prawns i.e. within a short time.
1957 s.c.
the same workers after finishing the work in the premises of the petitioner go to other similar premises in the locality where other lorry loads of prawns are taken.
these appeals are on certificates granted by the high companyrt of kerala.
this letter is number printed on the record but the high companyrt summaries the document as follows this document shows that as and when catches of prawns are made a companysignment of prawns is brought to the premises in a lorry at any time of the day or the night that the women and girls of the locality who form a casual heterogeneous miscellaneous and irre gular group companye at their companyvenience and do the peeling washing etc.
92 of the factories act for using a building as a factory without obtaining the previous permission in writing of the chief inspector of factories for failing to apply for registration and grant of licence for the factory and for failing to maintain a muster roll of the workers employed in the factory in one case and for failing to give attendance cards to every person employed in the factory in the other case.
section 2 1 of the factories act 1948 reads as follows worker means a person employed directly or through any agency whether for wages or number 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 companynected with the manufacturing process or the subject of the manufacturing process the respondent was companyvicted under sec.
he was also directed under sec.102 of the factories act to rectify the defects within a specified period.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sikri c.j.
the respondent filed a revision petition in the high court.
20/ in each case.
