V.P. Gopala Rao V.

Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 66

Rishabh Rao

1. Brief Facts of the Case:

a. The Appellant was the manager of a tobacco company’s premises located in Eluru
in Andhra Pradesh where sun-cured country tobacco purchased from local
producers was collected, processed, stored and then transported to the company’s
factory at Bombay which would ultimately manufacture the tobacco into
cigarettes.

b. The Appellant was prosecuted under Section 6(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 and
Rules 3 and 5(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Factory Rules, 1950 for failure to obtain a
license from the Chief Inspector of Factories and his prior approval for the plans
of the premises.

c. The Appellant’s main contention was that since the premises did not constitute a
“factory” it was not necessary for him to obtain the license and prior approval
from the Chief Inspector of Factories.

2. Procedural History:

a. The 2nd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Eluru had accepted the Appellant’s defence
contention that the premises did not constitute a factory and acquitted him.

b. Thereafter, the public prosecutor filed an appeal against the above order before the
Andhra Pradesh Hight Court. The AP HC convicted the Appellant for violation of
Section 6(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 and Rules 3 and 5(3) of the Andhra
Pradesh Factory Rules, 1950 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50 under each
count.

c. The present case is an appeal against the ruling of the AP HC.

3. Issue: Whether the Appellant’s premises constituted a “factory” under section 2(m) of the
Factories Act, 1948.

a. Sub-Issue 1: Whether the persons employed on the premises were “workers”?

b. Sub-Issue 2: Whether any manufacturing process was being carried on at the

premises?

4. Applicable Provisions:

a. Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 defines a “factory” as any premises where
20 or more workers are working on any day of the preceding 12 months and
where a manufacturing process is being carried on.

b. Section 2(k)(i) of the Factories Act, 1948 defines a “manufacturing process” as

any process involving making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing,
 packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing, treating or adapting
any article or substance with a view to its sale, transport, delivery or disposal.

c. Section 2(l) of the Factories Act, 1948 defines a “worker” as a person employed
directly, or through any agency, whether for wages or not, in any manufacturing
process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a
manufacturing process or the premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any
kind of work incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process, or the
subject of the manufacturing process.

5. Held:

a. The court relied on materials on record to analyse the nature of activities carried
on in the premises. Based on its analysis, the court ruled that a “manufacturing
process” as defined under Section 2(m) was indeed being carried on. The court
stated that the breaking up, moistening of tobacco leaves, stripping of stalks were
done with a view to their use and transport to the Bombay factory and hence a
“manufacturing process” was taking place on the premises.

i. “The moistening was an adaptation of the tobacco leaves.”

b. On the “worker” issue, the court noted that while it was admitted that more than
20 persons were working on the premises, the main contention of the appellant
was that since they were employed by independent contractors they are not
workers under Section 2(1).

i. The court held that the materials on record did not show that the workmen
were employed under independent contractors.

ii. The court relied on Dharangadghara Chemical Works v. State of

Maharashtra to state that the main test for existence of a master-servant
relationship is the master’s right of superintendence and control of the
method of doing the work. The court eventually relied on evidence which
showed that workmen doing the work of stripping stalks form the tobacco
leaves were supervised by the management through a clerk who; collected
the stripped tobacco at the end of the day and noted the quantity of work
done by the workers.

iii. The court stated that this degree of supervision is sufficient to meet the
master-servant relationship standard and proves the existence of a contract
of service between the management and the workers.

iv. Since the Appellant failed to adduce evidence to show that other work
done on the premises lacked similar supervision, the court ruled against the
Appellant.

c. Since the activities being carried on at the premises were held to be a

“manufacturing process” and since the persons working at the premises were
found to fit within the definition of workman under Section 2(1), the court held
 that the premises were indeed a “factory” under Section 2(m) and reaffirmed the
Appellant’s conviction.

6. Critical Analysis:

a. When deciding on the issue of whether a manufacturing process was being carried
on at the premises, the court found little help from reported cases at the time on
the interpretation of Section 2(m). While in State of Kerala v V.M. Patelli it was
held that the work of garbling pepper cleaning, washing and drying it on a
concrete floor was a manufacturing process, in Col. Sardar C.S Angre v. State the
work of drying, packing and re-packing potatoes into bags was held not to be a
manufacturing process.

i. I believe that considering the existing precedent, the court in this case
conducted a well-reasoned analysis based on the materials on record and
correctly laid emphasis on the objective of the processes carried on in the
premises.

ii. In the Col. Sardar C.S Angre v. State case, while the process conducted
did seemingly fit into the definition of “manufacturing process”, it was
with the ultimate objective of cold storage and not sale, transport, delivery
or disposal. In the present case, the ultimate objective of the processes was
transport to the main factory at Bombay and hence the activities fit
squarely within the definition provided under Section 2(m).

b. Through the court’s analysis of the case with regard to section 2(1), it is clear that
the court has adopted a pro-worker stance since it applied a more broad
interpretation of the degree of supervision test leading to more inclusive definition
of a “worker”.

c. I believe that the court rightly strayed away from the narrow interpretation in Sri
Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh of the meaning of “directly or
through an agency” in section 2(1). In the above case, the court took a rigid stance
that the worker must be employed by the management and under a contract of
service Instead, in V.P Goprala Rao, the court noted that there is no a priori test
for the degree of control required for establishing a contract of service and broadly
interpreted the supervision of the workers.

i. The court even stated that as pointed out in the Bridhichand case, the fact
that the workmen have to work in the factory itself implies a certain
amount of supervision by the management. This shows that the court was
leaning towards a broader scope for the meaning of “worker”.

d. I believe that this judgement is in furtherance of the objectives behind the

enactment of the Factories Act, 1948 since it included the tobacco industry where
approx.. 4.57 crore Indians are employed. By holding the tobacco curing,
stripping, etc processes as “manufacturing process”, this case took a necessary
progressive stance towards the well-being of workers employed in the industry.