CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

 CHAPTER IV

4. Analysis and Interpretation

Table 4.1

Percentage analysis of age

S.NO AGE TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 Below 25 years 39 65.0
2 26 - 35 years 7 11.7
3 36 - 45 years 6 10.0
4 Above 45 years 8 13.3
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.1

Age

13%
10%
Below 25 years
12% 26 - 35 years
65%
36 - 45 years
Above 45 years

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers were of an age below 25 years (65%), 8 employers were of an age above 45 years
(13%), 7 employers were of an age between 26-35 years (12%), the minority of the
employers were of an age between 36-45 years(10%).

23
 Table 4.2

Percentage analysis of gender

S.no Gender TOTAL Percentage

1 Male 49 81.7
2 Female 11 18.3
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.2

Gender

18%

Male
Female
82%

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers were male (82%), the minority of the employers were female (18%).

24
 Table 4.3

Percentage analysis of place of residence

S.no Residential status TOTAL Percent

1 Own house 58 96.7
2 Rented house 2 3.3
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.3

place of residence

22%
33%
Within 2 km

18% 2 - 5 km
5 - 8 km
27% Above 8 km

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers were residing within 2 km (33%), 16 employers were residing between 2-5 km
(27%), 13 employers were residing above 8 km (22%), the minority of the employers were
residing between 5-8 km (18%).

25
 Table 4.4

Percentage analysis of family system

S.NO FAMILY TYPE TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 Nuclear family 48 80.0
2 Joint family 12 20.0
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.4

Family system

20%

Nuclear family
Joint family
80%

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers were nuclear family (80%) , the minority of the employers were joint family
(20%).

26
 Table 4.5

Percentage analysis of Marital status

S.NO MARITAL STATUS TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 Married 19 31.7
2 Unmarried 41 68.3
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.5

Marital status

32%

Married
68% Unmarried

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the employers
were unmarried (68%), the minority of the employers were married (32%).

27
 Table 4.6

Percentage analysis of Educational qualification

EDUCATIONAL
S.NO QUALIFICATION TOTAL PERCENTAGE
1 Illiterate 9 15.0
2 Primary 11 18.3
3 Secondary 10 16.7
4 Graduate 30 50.0
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.6

Educational qualification

15%

50% 18% Illiterate

Primary
Secondary
17% Graduate

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers were graduated (50%), 11 employers were primarily educated (18%), 10
employers were secondarily educated (17%), the minority of the employers were illiterate
(15%).

28
 Table 4.7

Percentage analysis of Family size

S.NO FAMILY SIZE TOTAL /PERCENTAGE

1 1 to 3 11 18.3
2 4 to 6 45 75.0
3 Above 6 4 6.7
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.7

Family size

7% 18%

1 to 3
4 to 6
Above 6
75%

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers have family with 4 – 6 members (75%), 11 employers have family with 1 to 3
members (18%), the minority of the employers have family with above 6 members (7%).

29
 Table 4.8

Percentage analysis of Residential status

S.NO RESIDENTIAL STATUS TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 Own house 58 96.7
2 Rented house 2 3.3
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.8

Residential status
3%

Own house
Rented house
97%

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers have own house (97%), the minority of the employers are in rented house (3%).

30
 Table 4.9

Percentage analysis of Number of dependents

NUMBER OF
S.NO DEPENDANTS TOTAL PERCENTAGE
1 0 13 21.7
2 1 11 18.3
3 2 24 40.0
4 3 & more 12 20.0
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.9

Dependents in family

20% 22%

No persons

18% One
Two
40%
Three & more

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers have two dependents in their family (40%), 13 employers have 0 dependents in
their family (22%), 12 employers have 1 dependents in their family (20%/), the minority of
the employers have 3 & more dependents in their family .

31
 Table 4.10

Percentage analysis of Number of earning members

S.NO NUMBER OF EARNING MEMBERS TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 0 1 1.7
2 1 18 30.0
3 2 25 41.7
4 3 & Above 16 26.7
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.10

Earning members in family

2%

27% 30%
0
1
2
41% 3 & Above

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers have two earning members in their family (41%), 18 employers have 1 earning
member in their family (30%), 16 employers have 3 above earning members in their family
(27%/), the minority of the employers have 0 earning members in their family(2%) .

32
 Table 4.11

Percentage analysis of Annual income

S.NO ANNUAL INCOME TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 Below 100000 19 31.7
2 100000 - 150000 29 48.3
3 Above 150000 12 20.0
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.11

Annual income

20%
32%

Below 100000
100000 - 150000

48% Above 150000

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the employers
have annual income between 1,00,000 lakh – 1,50,000 lakhs (45%), 19 employers have
annual income below 1,00,000 lakh (32%), the minority of the employers have annual
income more than 1,50,000 lakhs.

33
 Table 4.12

Percentage analysis of Number of power looms for an individual

S.NO NUMBER OF LOOMS TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 8 to 10 19 31.7
2 11 to 20 28 46.7
3 21 to 30 9 15.0
4 Above 30 4 6.7
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.12

Number of looms

7%
15% 32%
8 to 10
11 to 20
21 to 30
46% Above 30

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers have 11 to 20 power looms (46%),19 employers have 8 to 10 power looms (32%),
9 employers have 21 to 30 power looms (15%), the minority of the employers have Above 30
power looms (7%).

34
 Table 4.13

Percentage analysis of Experience

S. NO EXPERIENCE TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 Below 2 years 5 8.3
2 3 to 5 years 12 20.0
3 6 to 10 years 16 26.7
4 11 to 20 years 7 11.7
5 Above 20 years 20 33.3
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.13

Experience

8%
33% Below 2 years
20%
3 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
12% 27% 11 to 20 years
Above 20 years

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers have experience of more than 20 years (33%), 16 employers have experience 6 to
10 years (27%), 12 employers have experience 3 to 5 years (20%), 7 employers have
experience 11 to 20 years (12%), the minority of the employers have experience of less than
2 years (8%).

35
 Table 4.14

Percentage analysis of Traditional business

S.NO TRADITIONAL BUSINESS TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 Yes 44 73.3
2 No 16 26.7
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.14

Traditional business

27%

Yes

73% No

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers have powerloom as traditional business (73%) , the minority of the employers
doesn’t have power looms as traditional business (27%).

36
 Table 4.15

Percentage analysis of Number of family members working in Power looms

NUMBER OF FAMILY
S.NO MEMBERS TOTAL PERCENTAGE
1 1 12 20.0
2 2 23 38.3
3 3 15 25.0
4 4 & more 10 16.7
Total 60 100.0

` Chart 4.15

Family members in powerloom

17% 20%

1
25% 2
3
38%
4 & more

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers have 2 members of their family working in power looms (38%), 15 employers
have 3 members of their family working in power looms (35%), 12 employers have 1
member of their family working in power looms (20%), the minority of the employers have 4
and more family members working in their family (17%).

37
 Table 4.16

Percentage analysis of Shifts of powerloom working

S.NO NUMBER OF SHIFTS TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 one 12 20.0
2 two 48 80.0
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.16

Shifts of powerloom

20%

one
two
80%

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
power looms are working two shifts (80%), the minority of the power looms are working one
shift (20%).

38
 Table 4.17

Percentage analysis of Type of material produced

TYPE OF
S.NO MATERIAL TOTAL PERCENTAGE
1 Gaada 50 83.3
2 Rayon 7 11.7
Others 3 5.0
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.17

Type of material

12% 5%

Gaada
Rayon
83% Others

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers produces gaada as their product (83%), 7 employers have rayon as their product
(12%), the minority of the employers produces others as their product (5%).

39
 Table 4.18

Percentage analysis of Type of ownership

S.NO TYPE OF OWNERSHIP TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 job worker 48 80.0
2 Own textiles 12 20.0
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.18

Ownership

20%

job worker
Own textiles
80%

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers are job workers (80%) , the minority of the employers are own producers (20%).

40
 Table 4.19

Percentage analysis of Place for Power looms

S.NO PLACE FOR POWER LOOMS TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 Owned 56 93.3
2 Rented 4 6.7
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.19

Place for power looms

7%

Owned
Rented
93%

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers have the place for power looms as own (93%) , the minority of the employers have
place for power looms as rented (7%).

41
 Table 4.20

Percentage analysis of Type of power looms

TYPE OF
POWER
S.NO LOOMS TOTAL PERCENTAGE
1 Owned 56 93.3
2 Rented 4 6.7
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.20

Type of power looms

7%

Owned
Rented
93%

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers have power looms as their own (93%), the minority of the employers have power
looms as rented (7%).

42
 Table 4.21

Percentage analysis of Registration of power looms

REGISTRATION OF POWER
S.NO LOOMS TOTAL PERCENTAGE
1 Registered 30 50.0
2 Not registered 30 50.0
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.21

Registration of power looms

50%
50%
Registered
Not registered

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the half of the
employers registered their power looms (50%) while other employers doesn’t registered their
power looms (50%).

43
 Table 4.22

Percentage analysis of Number of employees in power looms

S.NO NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 1 to 2 33 55.0
2 3 to 4 17 28.3
3 5 to 8 6 10.0
4 Above 8 4 6.7
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.22

Number of employees

7%
10%

1 to 2
55% 3 to 4
28%
5 to 8
above 8

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers have 1 to 2 employees (55%),17 employers have 3 to 4 employees (28%), 6
employers have 5 to 8 employees (10%), the minority of the employers have more than 8
employees (7%).

44
 Table 4.23

Percentage analysis of Advance paid to employees

S.NO ADVANCE TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 Below 50000 34 56.7
2 50000 to 100000 18 30.0
3 100000 to 150000 3 5.0
4 Above 150000 5 8.3
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.23

Advance for emplopyees

5%
8%

Below 50000
30% 57% 50000 to 100000
100000 to 150000
Above 150000

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers provided below 50000 as advance to employees (57%) 18 employers provided
50000 to 100000 as advance to employees (30%), 5 employers provided more than 150000
as advance to employees (8%), the minority of the employers provided 100000 to 150000 as
advance to employees (7%).

45
 Table 4.24

Percentage analysis of Accommodation for employees

ACCOMMODATION
S.NO FOR EMPLOYEES TOTAL PERCENTAGE
1 Provided 38 63.3
2 Not provided 22 36.7
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.24

Accommodation

37%

Provided
63%
Not provided

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers provide accommodation for their employees (63%), the minority of the
employers ,doesn’t provide accommodation for their employees (37%).

46
 Table 4.25

Percentage analysis of Payment of salary

S.NO PAYMENT OF SALARY TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 Daily 8 13.3
2 Weekly 49 81.7
3 Monthly 3 5.0
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.25

Payment of salary

5% 13%

Daily
Weekly
Monthly
82%

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that among 60 employers, the majority of the
employers provide salary for their employees weekly (82%), 8 employers provide salary for
their employees daily (13%), the minority of the employers provide salary for their
employees monthly (5%).

47
 Table 4.26

Percentage analysis of Native of employees

S.NO NATIVE TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 PLACE OF
Same place 38 63.3
2 EMPLOYEES
Other districts 22 36.7
60 100.0

Chart 4.26

Nativity

37%

Same place
63%
Other districts

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that majority of the employers have employees
from the same place (63%) ,the minority of the employers are from other districts (37%).

48
 Table 4.27

Percentage analysis of Availability of employees

AVAILABILITY OF ADEQUATE
S.NO EMPLOYEES TOTAL PERCENTAGE
1 Yes 26 43.3
2 No 34 56.7
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.27

Availability of employees

43%

57% Yes
No

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that the majority of the employers have shortage
of employees (57%), the minority of the employers have adequate employees (43%).

49
 Table 4.28

Percentage analysis of Satisfaction with income

S.NO SATISFIED WITH INCOME TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 Yes 14 23.3
2 No 46 76.7
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.28

Satisfaction with income

23%

Yes
No
77%

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that the majority of the employers doesn’t
satisfied with their income (77%), the minority of the employers doesn’t satisfy with their
income(23%).

50
 Table 4.29

Percentage analysis of Satisfaction on business stability

SATISFACTION
ON BUSINESS
S.NO STABILITY TOTAL PERCENTAGE
1 Yes 9 15.0
2 No 51 85.0
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.29

Satisfaction on stability of business

15%

Yes
No
85%

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that the majority of the employers doesn’t
satisfied with the stability of business (85%), the minority of the employers doesn’t satisfy
with stability of business (15%).

51
 Table 4.30

Percentage analysis of Idea of expanding business

S.NO IDEA OF EXPANDING BUSINESS TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 Yes 29 48.3
2 No 31 51.7
Total 60 98.3

Chart 4.30

Idea of expanding business

48%
52%
Yes
No

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that the majority of the employers have idea of
expanding business (52%), the minority of the employers doesn’t have idea of expanding
business (48%).

52
 Table 4.31

Percentage analysis of other source of income

HAVING OTHER SOURCE OF

S.NO INCOME TOTAL PERCENTAGE
1 Yes 16 26.7
2 No 44 73.3
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.31

Other source of income

27%

Yes

73% No

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that the majority of the employers doesn’t have
other source of income (73%), the minority of the employers have other source of
income(27).

53
 Table 4.32

Percentage analysis of Aware of Government schemes

AWARE OF GOVERNMENT
S.NO SCHEMES TOTAL PERCENTAGE
1 Yes 13 21.7
2 No 47 78.3
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.32

Aware of government schemes

22%

Yes
No
78%

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that the majority of the employers doesn’t aware
of government schemes (78%), the minority of the employers aware of government schemes
(22%).

54
 Table 4.33

Percentage analysis of Aware of subsidy

S.NO AWARE OF SUBSIDY TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 Yes 25 41.7
2 No 35 58.3
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.33

Aware of subsidy

42%

58% Yes
No

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that the majority of the employers doesn’t
aware of subsidy (58%), the minority of the employers aware of subsidy (42%).

55
 Table 4.34

Percentage analysis of Major problem among powerloom owners

S.NO MAJOR PROBLEM TOTAL PERCENTAGE

1 Less Wages for weaving 36 60.0
2 Less demand in market 24 40.0
Total 60 100.0

Chart 4.34

Major problem

40%

Less Wages for weaving

60%
Less demand in market

Interpretation:

The above table and chart reveals that the majority of the employers felt less
wages for weaving as major problem (60%), the minority of the employers felt less demand
in market as major problem (40%).

56
 Table 4.35

ASSOSCIATION BETWEEN AGE & SATISFICATION WITH INCOME

Null Hypothesis:

There is no association between age & satisfaction with income

Research Hypothesis:

There is an association between age & satisfaction with income

AGE & SATISFICATION WITH INCOME

Satisfied with the income of Tota

S.no Age
power looms l
Yes No
1 Below 25 years 11 28 39
2 26 to 35 years 0 7 7
3 36 to 45 years 0 6 6
4 Above 45 years 3 5 8
Total 14 46 60

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi- Square

5.371a 3 0.147

Interpretation

The above table shows that P value is greater than 0.05. Hence, there is no
association between age and satisfaction with income

57
 Table 4.36

ASSOSCIATION BETWEEN AGE & STABILITY OF BUSINESS

Null Hypothesis:

There is no association between age & stability of business

Research Hypothesis:

There is an association between age & stability of business

AGE & STABILITY OF BUSINESS

S. No Age Stability of business

Yes No Total
1 Below 25 years 7 32 39
2 26 to 35 years 0 7 7
3 36 to 45 years 1 5 6
4 Above 45 years 1 7 8
Total 9 51 60

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig (2-
Value Df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 1.554 3 .670

Interpretation

The above table shows that P value is greater than 0.05.Hence, there is no
association between age and stability of business

58
 Table 4.37

ASSOSCIATION BETWEEN AGE & EXPANSION OF BUSINESS

Null Hypothesis:

There is no association between age & expansion of business

Research Hypothesis:

There is an association between age & expansion of business

AGE & EXPANSION OF BUSINESS

S. No Age Expansion of power looms

Yes No Total
1 Below 25 years 25 14 39
2 26 to 35 years 2 5 7
3 36 to 45 years 0 5 5
4 Above 45 years 2 6 8
Total 29 30 59

Chi-Square Tests
Value Df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 11.375a 3 .010

Interpretation

The above table shows that P value is lesser than 0.05. Hence, there is an
association between age and expansion of business

59
 Table 4.38

ASSOSCIATION BETWEEN AGE & AWARE OF SUBSIDY

Null Hypothesis:

There is no association between age & aware of subsidy

Research Hypothesis:

There is an association between age & aware of subsidy

AGE & AWARE OF SUBSIDY

S.no Age Aware of subsidy Total
Yes No
1 Below 25 years 18 21 39
2 26 to 35 years 5 2 7
3 36 to 45 years 0 6 6
4 Above 45 years 2 6 8
Total 25 35 60

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.074a 3 .045

Interpretation

The above table shows that P value is lesser than 0.05.Hence, there is an
association between age and aware of subsidy

60
 Table 4.39

ASSOSCIATION BETWEEN EDUCATION & SATISFACTION WITH INCOME

Null Hypothesis:

There is no association between education & satisfaction with income

Research Hypothesis:

There is an association between education & satisfaction with income

EDUCATION & SATISFACTION WITH INCOME

S.no Education Satisfied with the income

Yes No Total
1 Illiterate 1 8 9
2 Primary 4 7 11
3 Secondary 1 9 10
4 Graduate 8 22 30
Total 14 46 60

Chi-Square Tests
Value Df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.976a 3 .395

Interpretation

The above table shows that P value is greater than 0.05.Hence, there is no
association between education & satisfaction with income

61
 Table 4.40

ASSOSCIATION BETWEEN EDUCATION & AWARE OF SUBSIDY

Null Hypothesis:

There is no association between education & aware of subsidy

Research Hypothesis:

There is an association between education & aware of subsidy

EDUCATION & AWARE OF SUBSIDY

S.no Education Aware of subsidy

Yes No Total
1 Illiterate 2 7 9
2 Primary 3 8 11
3 Secondary 4 6 10
4 Graduate 16 14 30
Total 25 35 60

Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.976a 3 .395

Interpretation

The above table shows that P value is greater than 0.05.Hence, there is no
association between education & aware of subsidy

62
 Table 4.41

ASSOSCIATION BETWEEN EXPERIENCE & SATISFACTION WITH INCOME

Null Hypothesis:

There is no association between experience & satisfaction with income

Research Hypothesis:

There is an association between experience & satisfaction with income

EXPERIENCE & SATISFACTION WITH INCOME

EXPERIENCE & SATISFACTION WITH INCOME

S.no Experience Satisfaction with the income
Yes No Total
1 0 to 2 years 1 4 5
2 3 to 5 years 3 9 12
3 6 to 10 years 2 14 16
4 11to 20 years 1 6 7
5 Above 20 years 7 13 20
14 46 60

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 2.941 4 .568

Interpretation

The above table shows that P value is greater than 0.05. Hence, there is no
association between experience & satisfaction with income

63
 Table 4.42

ASSOSCIATION BETWEEN TYPE OF MATERIAL & STABILITY OF BUSINESS

Null Hypothesis:

There is no association between type of material & stability of business

Research Hypothesis:

There is an association between type of material & stability of business

TYPE OF MATERIAL & STABILITY OF BUSINESS

S.no Type of material Stability of business

Yes No Total
1 Gaada 5 45 50
2 Rayon 3 4 7
3 Others 1 2 3
9 51 60

Chi-Square Tests

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 6.032a 2 .049

Interpretation

The above table shows that P value is lesser than 0.05. Hence, there is an
association between type of material & stability of business

64
 Table 4.43

ASSOSCIATION BETWEEN NUMBER OF LOOMS & INCOME SATISFACTION

Null Hypothesis:

There is no association between number of looms & income satisfaction

Research Hypothesis:

There is an association between number of looms & income satisfaction

NUMBER OF LOOMS & INCOME SATISFACTION

S.no Number of looms Satisfaction with income

Yes No Total
1 8 to 10 5 14 19
2 11 to 20 5 23 28
3 21 to 30 2 7 9
4 Above 30 2 2 4
Total 14 46 60

Chi-Square Tests

Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 2.160a 3 .540

Interpretation

The above table shows that P value is greater than 0.05. Hence, there is no
association between number of looms & income satisfaction.

65