CENTRAL RAILWAY WORKSHOP Vs. VISWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question for consideration in this application in revision is whether the plaintiffs are workers within the meaning of Section 2 (I) of the Factories Act of 1948, hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) THE plaintiffs are employed in the Jhansi Central Railway Workshop, Jhansi. They are: timekeepers, who prepare the pay-sheet of the workshop staff, maintain leave accounts, dispose of settlement cases and maintain records for statistical purposes. Fourteen of the applicant-appellants detailed in annexure B of the affidavit are admittedly booth timekeepers who maintain attendance of the staff, job card particulars of the various jobs under operation, time-sheets of the staff working on various shops dealing with the production of railway spare parts, repairs, etc. Four of the applicant-appellants detailed in annexure C of the affidavit are head timekeepers, working in supervision of the applicant-appellants of the two other annexures. Section 2 (0 of the Act is as follows: 'worker' means 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 in any other kind of work incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process or the subject of manufacturing process; Under the Factories Act of 1934 the definition of the expression " worker " further said: but does not Include any person solely employed in a clerical capacity in any room or place where no manufacturing process is being carried on; In the definition of the expression " worker " in the Act of 1948, the aforesaid clause referring to persons employed in clerical capacity was deleted. The Court below has held that the plaintiff opposite parties are " workers " within the meaning of Section 2 (I) of the Factories Act, 1948.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel strenuously contended that since the plaintiff opposite parties are not persons who are employed in any manufacturing process and their work is that of a clerical nature they do not come within the ambit of the definition of "worker" under the Act. He further argued that in the Act of 1934 the words in the definition were: or in any other kind of work whatsoever incidental to or connected with manufacturing. The word " whatsoever " does not find a place in the definition of " workers " under the Act of 1948.