Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.39 seconds)The Factories Act, 1948
Section 2 in The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
Employees' State Insurance ... vs Ganpathia Pillai And Ors. on 1 August, 1960
Even though the definition clause takes in any person who is employed in any work incidental or preliminary to or connected with the work of the factory or establishment it has observed that as indicated in Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Ganapathia Pillai (1960) 19 F.J.R. 279, limitation had to be imposed upon that term, and that the limitation is to be found by reading the words 'incidental or preliminary to' in the definition clause in conjunction with the words 'work of the factory'.
Section 39 in The Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [Entire Act]
K. Thiagarajan Chettiar vs Employees' State Insurance ... on 10 January, 1963
In view of the principle laid down in K. Thiagarajan Chettiar v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation (1963) 24 F.J.R. 400, already cited, a gardener or a building repairer could well be regarded as an employee under the Act. For instance, if workers are employed permanently and are in the rolls of the mills and their job is to do repair work whenever necessary or do white washing or colour washing whenever necessary, even though the necessity for doing such work may not be quite full time work as in the case of workmen employed in the production work of the factory, the former would be employees if they are not casual workmen employed as and when a need arises, for instance due to heavy winds, rains or storm. Every big building like textile mills will undoubtedly require several workmen for attending to the repair work, white washing, or colour washing. They would be certainly employees within the meaning of the Act, and the work they do cannot be said to be casual labour. The distinction is not whether the work done is in the main manufacturing and production line, but whether the work done is done in connection with the work of the factory, and whether or not it is casual or precarious.
Regional Director, Employees' State ... vs S.M. Sriramulu Naidu on 13 October, 1959
In Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. S.M. Sriramulu Naidu (1959) 19 F.J.R. 238, the question arose with regard to a cinema studio, "Pakshiraja Studios", in Coimbatore, as to how far all the departments should be taken as a unit for the purpose of ascertaining whether the premises of the studio would be a factory under the Act. In that studio there were several departments like electrical, camera, sound, setting, moulding, carpentry, laboratory, editing, make-up, etc. Electric power was utilised in connection with some of the items of these works. If all the departments were taken into account the number of persons employed would automatically exceed 20. But if each department was taken as a unit, the number employed was less than 20. The argument of the management that all the departments should not be taken as one unit was not accepted by the High Court. It was observed that all the 20 persons need not be working in the same section or department, and that so long as the efforts of all the departments are co-ordinated to achieve the main object of the factory, 'manufacture', the premises would be a 'factory' and that the premises need not be a single building, and a number of buildings within a single compound might constitute a factory.