1982 PLP 1072 (PLC)

The definition of worker given in section 2 (h) of the Factories Act, 1934 is as under: ‑ " 'worker' means a person employed directly or through an agency whether for wages or not, in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for the manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work whatsoever, incidental to or con nected with the subject of the manufacturing process, but does not in clude any person solely employed in a clerical capacity in any room/ place where no manufacturing process is being carried on." The following part of the definition is significant for the purpose of this case and needs closer examination‑ "or in any other kind of work whatsoever, incidental to or connected ith the subject of the manufacturing process." The evidence on the record is that the appellant used to help the Store Keeper in issuing articles including timber for being used in the workshop. The articles issued are to be entered in the register and signatures of the persons taking them away. Admittedly, the timber issued from the store is used for manufacturing railway bogies in the workshop. it, therefore, can be said that issuing of timber is a kind of worst incidental to or connected with the subject of the manufacturing process. Obviously, the bogies cannot be manufactured, if the timber is not issued. There is no evidence that the timber issued from the store is used for some other purpose, but the evidence, as mentioned above, is that the same is used for manufacturing railway bogies. The words 'work whatsoever' are further significant. Whatever kind of work may be, if it is incidental to or connected with the subject of the manufacturing process it is sufficient to include the doer of that work in the definition of worker. Issuing of timber and entering the issuance in the relevant register and scoring off the timber issued from the relevant column of the register is obviously a work incidental to and connected with the manufacturing process. No doubt it is further written in the definition of worker that the definition does not include a person who is solely em ployed in a clerical capacity in any room/place where no manufacturing a process is being carried on. It cannot be said that the appellant is em ployed solely in a clerical capacity. The clerical work to be done by him is as a result of and connected with issuing of timber and other articles to be used in manufacturing process. So it cannot be said that he is employed solely in clerical capacity. No doubt, in the store itself no manufacturing process is being carried out, but since the store is situated within the precincts of the workshop and everything stored in it is meant for; manufacturing process, the said premises are included in the factory. The definition of factory reads as under:‑ " 'factory' means any premises, including the precincts thereof, where on 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 or is ordinarily carried on with or without the aid of power, but does not include a mine, subject to‑ the operation of the Mines Act, 1923 (IV of 1923)." According to this definition, it is not necessary that in the whole of the premises or the precincts of the factory, manufacturing process should have been carried on but it is sufficient if in any part of it manufacturing process is being‑done. Since the store in which the appellant was emplo yed is within the boundary of the workshop, it stands included in the precincts and since in major part of the precincts of the workshop manufacturing process is being carried on, even the store is included in the definition of factory. The appellant is covered by the definition of work man given in the Workmen's Compensation Act also. Section 2 (n) of the said Act defines a workman as under:‑‑‑ Workman means any person (other than a person whose employ ment is of a casual nature and who is employed otherwise than for the purpose of the employer's trade or business) who is‑ (i) a railway servant as define) in section 3‑ of the Railways Act, 1890 (IX of 1890) not permanently employed in any administra tive, district or sub‑divisional office of a railway and not employ ed in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule 11, or (ii) employed on monthly wages not exceeding one thousand rupees, in any such capacity as is specified in Schedule 11." According to Schedule 11, clause (xii) a person employed by a railway as defined in clause (4) of section 3, and subsection (1) of section 148 of the Railways Act, 1890 (IX of 1890), either directly or through a sub contractor, by a person fulfilling a contract with the railway administra tion is a workman.

3. As a result of the discussion made above, I hold that the appellant is covered by the definition of workman and' is not a civil servant.

4. The learned lower Court has not decided the case on merits and e dismissed the petition only on the ground that the appellant was not all workman. The appeal is accepted, impugned decision of the learned lower Court set aside and the case is remanded for decision on merits. Appeal allowed.