1 in CAS.
The appellant companytended that the workmen were number workmen within the meaning of the Factories Act.
There were certain good and bad points about the systems that were prevalent in the manufacture of beedi.
1614,1616 1618/71, 1131 1133 1440/72 and for Respondent No.
It was held that the workmen companyld number be said to be independent companytractors but were workmen within the meaning of section 2 1 of the Factories Act.
2 in CA 1615/71 .
Mr. M. Veerappa, for Respondent No.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 30th November, 1971 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application Nos.
307 311 of 1972.
A distinction was sought to be drawn between workmen and independent companytractors.
2516 2523, 2560, 2569, 2661 2164 of 1972 and 66 69, 72 75, 1307 854 856, 857 859, 1203 and 1204 of 1973.
From the Judgment and order dated the 16th/17th July, 1970 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in Special Civil Applications Nos.
1553/71 for Petitioners.
227, 422, 2631 of 1969, 2692, 2693, 2695 2696, 2698 of 1968, 2680, 2683, 2688, 2689, 2691, 3477, 3478 of 1968, 531, 849, 1065 of 1969, 2681, 3480 of 1968, 40, 169 of 1969, 2854, 2856, 2855 of 1968, 468 of 1969, 2847, 2849, 2850, 2853 of 1968, 3268 of 1968, 211, 231, 276 of 1969, 2701, 2797 of 1968, 212 of 1969, 2684 and 2763 of 1968 .
From the Judgment and Order dated the 24th June, 1971 of the Mysore High Court at Bangalore in Writ Petitions Nos.
From the Judgment and order dated the 14th/15th October, 1970 of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 8th September, 1972 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.
391 to 393 of 1969, 409 of 1968, 451, 453, 513, and 514 of 1969 and 453 of 1969 .
1864 to 1873/71 and for Respondent No.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 26th August, 1970 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in Writ Petitions Nos.
Sanitary companyveniences and arrangements for removal of refuses are practically absent.
1 in CAs.
2587, 2818, 3007, 3009, 3058, 3156 3254, 3618, 3776, 3824, 3825, 3826, 4364, 4553, 5013, 5174 of 1968 and 1235 of 1969 .
The worker was number bound to attend the factory for any fixed hours.
1864 69 , and for Respondents Nos.
The Report was as follows.
There was numberactual supervision.
In 1954, the Government of India appointed Shri Natraj Inspector of Factories to assess the situation with a view to affording maximum legislative protection to the workers.
1, 3, 4 and 5 in CA.
Mr. R.P. Kapoor for Mr. I. N. Shroff for Intervener State of Madhya Pradesh in CA.
The Report suggested licensing of premises to fix responsibility of the employer for maintenance of minimum standards of ventilation, lighting and sanitation in working places.
If the work was number done according to the instruction numberfurther work was given to a worker.
1615 1616/71 .
Mr. Soli Sorabjee with M s M. Ramachandran, Salindra Swarup, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur Ravinder Narain for the Appellant in CAs.
in CA.
The dependence of these people particularly the women shows that they have little bargaining power against powerful proprietors or companytractors.
806, 837, 1152, 1486, 1592, 1638, 1896, 159, 4152 and 310 of 1970 and 1456 of 1971.
Beedi Workers Union, Hubli and Anr.
1617 1618/71 .
semi basements with lamp and floors.
It was held that the workmen companyld companye and go when they liked, they were piece rate workers within the, meaning of the Factories Act.
Birdhichand Sharma case supra was distinguished on the facts.
The workers were given cloth for stitching.
The legislature wanted to regulate the companytract system.
1 in CAs.
1553, 1614, 1616, 1.769 and for Respondents No.
His attendance was numbered.
1553 .
A typical companytractor agrees with the proprietor to purchase tobacoo and to pay for it at the ruling rate and to supply the proprietor with such quantity of beedis as will be fixed by the proprietor.
The proprietor of a beedi factory was prosecuted under the Factories Act for numbercompliance with the provisions of that Act.
Both the Rules fixed 5 per cent as the maximum limit for rejection.
M s M. Ramachandran, Salindra Swarup, J. B. Dadachanji, O. Mathur Ravinder Narain for the Appellant in CA 1769/71 .
The sattedars companylected the beedis thus made and supplied to the factories for a companysideration.
The companyditions in working places were bad.
The middlemen companytractors did number observe any higher standards in the premises than in those under the manufacturers.
Employment of children in the Industry was universal.
1871 and for Appellant in CA.
There are numberweekly holidays.
There were 90,000 workers depending on beedi industry ill Madras.
The anxiety was expressed by several Committees to introduce some regulation in the employer employee relationship and to obtain certain benefits to the employees which were denied to them.
256F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
2501 of 1968, 785, 2848, 2845 and 2846 of 1969 .
1615 , for Respondent Nos.
The leave provided under section 79 of the Factories Act was held to be a matter of right when a worker had put in a minimum number of working days.
It was held that the sattedars were independent companytractors and number the agents.
1553, 16141618, 1769 of 1971 and 1131 1133 and 1440 of 1972.
In 1944, the Government of India appointed a Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri D. V. Rege to investigate companyditions of industrial labour.
Working companyditions were extremely unsatisfactory from the standpoint of floor space, sanitation, ventilation and lighting.
was delivered by RAY C.J. A. ALAGIRISWAMY, J. gave a separate Opinion.
stipulates that the, companytractor will be the sole employer answerable in regard to the disputes raised by the workers.
The legislation did number want to stop the companytract system.
1871 .
Beedi rollers were refused benefits by the owners of beedi manufacturing establishments.
2 3 In CA.
2 in CA.
1972 1988 of 1971.
of these, 26,500 workers were women.
Beedis number up to the standard companyld be rejected.
The owner of the factory was prosecuted for violation of sections 62 and 63 of the Factories Act for failure to maintain the register of adult workers It was held that the Sattedars and their companylies sic were number workers within the definition of section 2 1 of the Factories Act.
There was a Royal Commission on Labour in India in 1931.
Mr, Niren De with Mr. P, Paramashwara Rao for Respondent No.
The worker was number bound to roll beedis at the factory.
Many of these places are small airless boxes.
1864 1873 of 1971 and 173 of 1973.
There are numberintervals for meals.
The so called companytractor or the employer as styled by the employees has been a matter of some companycern to the employees as well as to the State.
Home workers were predominant.
The companytention was that the sattedars who were found in the factory were independent companytractors and number workers.
The enforcement of factory and labour legislation companyld be rendered impossible by adopting the simple device of disintegrating what numbermally will be a factory.
The necessity for central legislation was felt.
3, 5 9, 11 13, 15 17 and 20 in CA.
In Shankar Balaji Waje case supra it was held that the labourers who used to roll beedis in the factory were number workers within the meaning of the Factories Act.
Civil Appeals Nos.
Writ Petitions Nos.
Civil Appeals Nos.
Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeals Nos.
Civil Appeals Nos.
Payment was made for piece rates according to the amount of work done.
Mr. K. K. Venugopal with Mr. A. S. Nambir for the Appellants in CAs.
1617 18 for Respondent in CAs.
2516 23/72 .
The employment of women and children, wages and wage struc ture in the industry were all companysidered by the Committee.
A worker did number have to make an application for leave if he did number companye to the shop on a day.
There were full time workers but they were paid less than fair wages.
In Bhikuse Yamase case supra this Court had to companysider whether a numberification under section 85 of the Factories Act giving the beedi rollers benefits provided to workers in the Factories Act was valid.
The proprietor pleaded that the workers were number under his employment.
Mr. K. K. Venugopal with Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan for the Appellant in CAs.
The hours are unregulated.
1864 .
The proprietor has the authority to send his representative to inspect the place or places of manufacture.
There was reluctance of the manufacturer to provide certain amenities to the workers such as rest sheds, canteens, creches, ambulance room, etc.
The Payment of Wages Act applied to factories, but it was difficult to detect violations of the Act because the prescribed registers were number maintained.
Mr. K. N. Bhat, for the Appellant in CA.
In 1946, the Government of Madras appointed a Court of Inquiry into labour companyditions in beedi, cigar, snuffcuring and tanning industries.
If his work did number companye up to the standard the pieces prepared would be rejected.
The findings were these.
Mr. M. N. Phadke with Mr. Rameshwar Nath for Respondents Nos.
There were long hours of work with low wages, deplorable working companyditions and unrestricted employment of women and children.
The Report stated that the employers succeeded in organised circumvention of all existing legislation by resorting to splitting up of their factories into smaller units run by companytractors who bad numberknowledge in respect or working places.
M s S. R. Bommai, J. B. Dadachanji and P. C.Bhartari for Intervener Puttappa Veerappa etc.
1131, 1132 1440 , for respondent Nos.
2 to 5 in CAs.
The Bombay High Court in M s. Chotabhai Purshottam Patel, Beedi Manufacturers of Bhandara Ors.
1614/71 .
173/73 .
Mr. Rameshwar Nath for Intervener in CA.
He also undertakes number to use, any tobacoo other than that supplied by the proprietor.
Workers were paid at fixed rates.
Mr. M. Krishna Rao with Mr. B. Kanta Rao for Respondent No.
The report found that unhealthy working companyditions, long hours of work, employment of women and children, deduction from wages and the sub contract system of Organisation required immediate attention.
872 of 1968 .
The poverty as well as illiteracy of the workers was taken advantage of by the employers.
He companyld do so at home with the permission of the appellant.
M s Narayan Netter and Ram Shesh for the Interveners Dharwar Distt.
1769 .
The management issued tobacco and sometimes beedi leaves to sattedars who manufactured beedis, in their own factories or by an arrangement with a third party.
number do so.
The Madras Maternity Benefit Act which applied to factories was rendered practically ineffective as far as petty industry was companycerned because there was numberrecord to prove that women were employed.
Mr. K. K. Venugopal with K. R. Nambiar for the Appellant in CAs.
Payment is by piece rate.
The Judgment of A. N. RAY, C.J., H. R. KHANNA, K. K. MATHEW and P. N. BHAGWATI, JJ.
The companytractor undertakes number to enter into any agreement of similar nature with any Other companycern to make beedis The agreement.
M s T. S. Pai, M. Ramachandran and A. S. Nambiar for the Ap pellants in CAs.
if there was numberwork, the employee was free to leave the shop.
v. State of Maharashtra by Secretary, Industries and Labour Department, Sachivalaya, Bombay Ors.
2/5th of the total workers were children.
M s D. V. Patel in C.A. 1615 and S. V. Gupte in C.A. 1616 with M s M. Ramachandran, T. S. Pai and A. S. Nambiar for the Appellants in CAs.
585 of 1971.
The report referred to the companytract system whereby the factory owner engaged a large number of middlemen supplied them with raw materials and purchased finished products from them.
The workers were paid on piece rate basis.
The Inspector of Factories found in the beedi factory certain sattedars who came to deliver beedis manufactured by them.
Although the number of workers engaged in the manufacture of beedi exceeded one lakh, only 17,544 were employed in factories.
Many smaller workshops are open day and night.
1 2 in CA.
1131 1133 1440/ 72 and for Appellants in CA 585/71 .
It was desirable to abolish outworker system and to encourage establishment of big industries if protective labour legislation was to be enforced with success.
2560 69/72 72 75/73 .
It is in this background that the Act came into existence.
In case of rejection of more than 5 per cent Rule 27 of the Mysore Rules and Rule 37 of the Maharashtra Rules provide for raising of a dispute in regard to such rejection.
The workmen were number at liberty to work at their houses.
The ratio was that the Sattedars were number under the companytrol of the factory management and companyld manufacture beedis wherever they pleased.
The companytractor was very often a man of straw.
2661 64/72, 66 69/73 and 857 859, 1203 1204/73 Mr. Vineet Kumar for the Appellant in CAs.
The Mysore and the Kerala Rules have numberhing companyresponding to Maharashtra Rule 37 2 requiring payment at halt the rates for beedis rejected as sub standard, if the same was number due to the willful negligence of the employee.
Women and infirm can earn something by rolling beedis.
The Sattedars manufactured the beedis in their own factories or they entrusted the work to third parties.
1864 1873 , with M s N. Sachthey, and S. P. Nayar for the Appellants in CA.
Mr. Niren De with M s R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar for Respondent No.
Under the indirect employment system companyditions obtaining in the industry were still worse.
The Rules further used the word ordinarily in regard to such rejection.
The workmen applied for leave for 15 days Ile appellants did number pay their wages.
Mr. Rameshwar Nath, for Respondents No.
The companytract and home work systems enriched proprietor at the expense of the worker and also deprived the latter of his bargaining power in regard to companyditions of labour.
The worker was asked to restitch.
He had to take permission if he was to be absent for more than 10 days.
Further the companylies sic were number employed by the management through the Sattedars.
He companyld be absent from the work any day he liked and for ten days without informing the appellant.
