WORKER

Factories Act, 1948:-

2(l) “worker” means a person employed, directly or by or through
any agency (including a contractor) with or without the knowledge of
the principal employer, whether for remuneration or not, 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 connected with, the manufacturing process, or
the subject of the manufacturing process, but does not include any
member of the armed forces of the Union;

 There must be some connection b/w person and manufacturing

process.
 Not confined to a Permanent or Regular Employment. An
intermittent or causal employment is also well covered.
 The source through which a person has been employed is not
material rather the nature of work carried on by him is the
determining factor.
 Payment of remuneration is irrelevant for this definition.
 Persons selling manufactured article are not covered.
 All employees are not workers but, all workers are employees.
COSHWC 2019:-
Section 2(zzd) “worker”1 means any person (except an apprentice as
defined under clause (aa) of section 2 of the Apprentices Act, 1961)
employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,
whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and includes
working journalists and sales promotion employees for the purposes
of any proceeding under this Code in relation to an industrial dispute,
includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or
retrenched or otherwise terminated in connection with, or as a
consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such
person––
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950, or the Army Act, 1950,
or the Navy Act, 1957; or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other
employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative
capacity; or
(iv) who is employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wage of
exceeding fifteen thousand rupees per month or an amount as may be
notified by the Central Government from time to time.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, the expression
“industrial dispute” shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in
clause (k) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947;
Case Laws :-
1
2(l) “worker” means a person employed, directly or by or through any agency (including a contractor) with or
without the knowledge of the principal employer, whether for remuneration or not, 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 connected with, the manufacturing process, or the subject of the manufacturing
process, but does not include any member of the armed forces of the Union;
1. State of U.P. v. M.P. Singh 1960 AIR SC 569
The act is intended to secure health, safety, welfare and good
working conditions for the workers working within the factory
premises. Benefit of this act does not extend to field workers
working outside the factory. Persons were employed to
supervise and control the growth and supply of sugarcane in
field.
2. State of Kerala v. V.M. Patel (1961) 1 LLJ 53
Works Supervisor is like an Independent Contractor, because he
is the sole judge of the number of persons required to be
employed, their hours of work, their remuneration and the
manner in which they are to execute the work. Such persons are
not workers under the Factories Act, 1948.

3. Shankar Balaji WajeVs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC

517
(A person was working without any kind of agreement. He was
free to come and leave. He was paid on piece rate basis and No
requirement for minimum production also. For employment
employee must agree to serve the employer subject to his
control and supervision)

4. Central Railway Workshop v. Vishwanath 1970 21 FLR 68

Time keepers engaged in Railway Workshop (with purely
clerical duties) are also included as the act demands liberal
interpretation.

5. Rohtas Industries v. Ramlakhan Singh AIR 1978 SC 849

(Person engaged to supervise and check the quality and
weighment of waste paper and rags which are the basic raw
material for the manufacture of paper. He used to work in
precincts of Factory)
 6. K.M.P. KodarMoideen Vs. State
(Filling cotton in packs and loading them)

Dharangdhara Chemical Wroks Ltd. Vs. State of

Saurashtra
(There must be relationship of employer and employee
otherwise cannot be treated as workman. Difference between
independent contractor and worker.)

7. State of Bombay Vs. Alisahebn Kashim Tamboli

(There is no requirement of wages)

 Who are Workmen –

Time Keepers (Clerical-Official Staff) Lorry Drivers
 Who are not Workmen –
Watchman Partners

 Stoppage of Work
 Section 103
Section 2(v) “factory”2 means any premises including the precincts
thereof—
(i) whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on
any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a
manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is
ordinarily so carried on, or
(ii) whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on
any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a
manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power, or
is ordinarily so carried on,—
but does not include a mine, or a mobile unit belonging to the armed
forces of the Union, railway running shed or a hotel, restaurant or
eating place.
Explanation I.—For computing the number of workers for the
purposes of this clause all the workers in different groups and relays]
in a day shall be taken into account;
Explanation II.—For the purposes of this clause, the mere fact that an
Electronic Data Processing Unit or a Computer Unit is installed in any
premises or part thereof, shall not be construed to make it a factory if
no manufacturing process is being carried on in such premises or part
thereof;

Case Laws :-
2
2(m) “factory” means any premises including the precincts thereof-
(i) whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve
months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of
power, or is ordinarily so carried on, or
(ii) whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding
twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the
aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on,
but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952) or a mobile unit
belonging to the armed forces of the Union, a railway running shed or a hotel, restaurant or eating place;]
[Explanation 5[I].-For computing the number of workers for the purposes of this clause all the workers in
6[different groups and relays in a day shall be taken into account;]
[Explanation II.-For the purposes of this clause, the mere fact that an Electronic Data
Processing Unit or a Computer Unit is installed in any premises or part thereof, shall not be
construed to make it a factory if no manufacturing process is being carried on in such
premises or part thereof.];
 1. Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala Vs. State of Bombay

It is clear that the word " premises " is a generic term meaning
open land or land with buildings or buildings alone. The
expression" premises including precincts" it has been urged, clearly
indicates that in the context of the definition of the word " factory
", premises meant only buildings as buildings alone can have
precincts and there can be no precincts of any open land. This
expression " premises including precincts" does not necessarily
mean that the premises must always have precincts. Even buildings
need not have any precincts. The word " including " is not a term
restricting the meaning of the word " premises " but is a term
which enlarges the scope of the word " premises ". We are
therefore of opinion that even this contention is not sound and does
not lead to the only conclusion that the word " premises " must be
restricted to mean buildings and be not taken to cover open land as
well.

2. V. P. Gopala Rao vs Public Prosecutor AIR 1970 SC66

Manufacturing processes as defined in s. 2 (k) (i) of the Factories Act
were carried on in the premises. The definition is widely
worded. The moistening was an adaptation of the tobacco leaves.
The 'stalks were stripped by breaking them up. The leaves were
packed by bundling them up and putting them into gunny bags.
The breaking up, the adaptation, and the packing of the tobacco
leaves were done with a view to their use and transport.
The persons employed were workers as defined in s. 2 (1) of the.
Factories Act. More than 20 persons worked in the premises
regularly every day. The was the positive evidence of P.W.s that the
work of stripping stalks from the tobacco leaves was done under the
supervision," of the management. There was no evidence to show
that the other work in the premises was not done under
like supervision. The prosecution adduced prima facie
evidence showing that the relationship of master and servant existed
between the workmen and the management. The appellant did not
produce any rebutting evidence.
3. Grauer & Weil (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise,
Baroda AIR 1995 SC 543
Ordinary meaning of the word ‘Premises’ is a piece of land
including its building or a building together with its grounds or
appurtenances and precincts mean the area surrounding a place.
The words “any Premises including precincts thereof” under the
Factories Act are wide enough to include all the buildings with
its surroundings which form part of one unit.

4. Hathras Municipality Vs. Union of India

(Only two requirements- Manufacturing Process & Workers)
5. E.S.I. Corporation Vs. S.M. Sriram Naidu 1959
(Number of Studios in the same compound. Different number of
the workers employed in those studios. Whether requirement of
20 workers fulfilled?)
6. B.M. Lakshmanmurthy Vs. The ESIC, Bangalore
(When Contractor’s Factory can be Treated as of Principal
Employer’s Factory).
Examples-
Unsuccessful Manufacturing University Press
Hotel & its Kitchen
Equipment Maintenance Department of Hospital
Section 2(zn) "occupier"3 of a factory means the person who has
ultimate control over the affairs of the factory:
Provided that-
(i) in the case of a firm or other association of individuals, any one of
the individual partners or members thereof shall be deemed to be the
occupier;
(ii) in the case of a company, any one of the directors shall be deemed
to be the occupier;
(iii) in the case of a factory owned or controlled by the Central
Government or any State Government, or any local authority, the
person or persons appointed to manage the affairs of the factory by
the Central Government, the State Government or the local authority,
as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the occupier:
Provided further that in the case of a ship which is being repaired, or
on which maintenance work is being carried out, in a dry dock which
is available for hire, the owner of the dock shall be deemed to be the
occupier for all purposes except the matters as may be prescribed by
the Central Government which are directly related to the condition of
ship for which the owner of ship shall be deemed to be the occupier;
Case Laws :-
1. J.K. Industries Vs. Chief Inspector of Factories

3
2(n) “occupier” of a factory means the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory,

Provided that- (i) in the case of a firm or other association of individuals, any one of the individual partners or
members thereof shall be deemed to be the occupier;
(ii) in the case of a company, any one of the directors, shall be deemed to be the occupier;
(iii) in the case of a factory owned or controlled by the Central Government, or any State Government, or any
local authority, the person or persons appointed to manage the affairs of the factory by the Central
Government, the State Government or the local authority, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the
occupier]:
 (Ultimate control over the company affairs is different from the
control over factory. Day to day control is different from the
ultimate control. Ultimate control cannot be transferred unless
the ownership itself has been transferred.)
2. Wimco Ltd. Vs. Union of India
(Person designated as occupier shall be deemed to have ultimate
control over the factory not the directors as directors may not be
involved in the affairs of factory)
3. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chief Inspector of Factories
(Indian Oil shall come in the category of third proviso as it is the
corporate mask of central government)
4. ESIC Vs. G.N. Mathur
(Ultimate control means right to take policy decisions in running
the factory itself)
5. Jaipur Syntex Vs. Sate of Rajasthan
(The Manager may have immediate control of the factory but
not the ultimate control)

7A. General duties of the occupier

(1) Every occupier shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the

health, safety and welfare of all workers while they are at work in the
factory.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-

section (1), the matters to which such duty extends, shall include-

(a) the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work

in the factory that are safe and without risks to health;

(b) the arrangements in the factory for ensuring safety and

absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling,
storage and transport of articles and substances;
 (c) the provision of such information, instruction, training and
supervision as are necessary to ensure the health and safety of
all workers at work;

(d) the maintenance of all places of work in the factory in a

condition that is safe and without risks to health and the
provision and maintenance of such means of access to, and
egress from, such places as are safe and without such risks;

(e) the provision, maintenance or monitoring of such working

environment in the factory for the workers that is safe, without
risks to health and adequate as regards facilities and
arrangements for their welfare at work.

(3) Except in such cases as may be prescribed, every occupier shall

prepare, and, as often as may be appropriate, revise, a written
statement of his general policy with respect to the health and safety of
the workers at work and the organization and arrangements for the
time being in force for carrying out that policy, and to bring the
statement and any revision thereof to the notice of all the workers in
such manner as may be prescribed.