CASE STUDY: STATE OF KERALA VS

R.E.D'SOUZA 1971 (1) SCC 533

Submitted by:
Name of the candidate
Aayush
Division- A | PRN- 15010224001 | Class of
2015-20
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Symbiosis International University, Pune.

In
SEPTEMBER 2019

Under the guidance of

MR. PURVISH MALKAN,
Course in Charge - Labour and Industrial Law,
SLS- NOIDA.

CERTIFICATE
The Case-Study on STATE OF KERALA VS

R.E.D'SOUZA 1971 (1) SCC 533 submitted to the

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Labour and

Industrial Law as part of Internal assessment is
based on my original work carried out under the
guidance of Mr. Purvish Malkan from July’ 2019
to September’ 2019. The research work has not
been submitted elsewhere for award of any
degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and

incorporated in the thesis has been duly
acknowledged.

I understand that I myself could be held

responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any,
detected later on.

Signature of the candidate :

Date: August 09, 2019

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I take this opportunity to express my profound
gratitude and deep regard to my guide Mr.
Purvish Malkan for his exemplary guidance,
monitoring and constant encouragement
throughout the course of this research project. The
blessing, help and guidance given by him from
time to time shall and will always carry me a long
way in the journey of my life on which I have just
embarked. I also take this opportunity to express a
deep sense of gratitude to Symbiosis Law School,
Noida and Symbiosis International Deemed
University, Pune for their cordial support and
resources provided by them, which helped me in
completing this task through various stages. I am
obliged to all other faculty members, for the
valuable information provided by them in their
respective fields. I am grateful for their
cooperation during the period of my assignment.
Lastly, I thank the Almighty, my Parents, my
Sister and my fellow Co-Learners for their constant
encouragement without which this Research would
not have been possible.

CASE STUDY
FACTS
The women and girls of the locality, who form a "casual,
heterogeneous, miscellaneous and irregular group", come at their
convenience and do the peeling, washing etc., at piece-rates in
factory where catches of prawns are delivered.
The Rates of Remuneration depend upon the quantity of prawns
available, the number of women and girls that come to do the work,
the hour of the day or night when the catches arrive.
For days, there are no work done.
The Owners do not have any control over the manner or quantum of
work these women and girls do.

CASE-HISTORY
Respondent (Factory Owners) were convicted under Section 92 of
the Factories Act for using a building as a factory, for failing to
apply registration and grant of license for the factory and for failing
to maintain a muster roll of workers employed in the factory
Respondent was directed to rectify the defects under Section 102 of
the Factories Act
In the Revision petition filed at High Court by the Respondent, it
was held that the work being carried out in the premises of the
respondent amounted to manufacturing process and the
Respondent were not ‘workers’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)
of the Factories Act.
The High Court held that Women and Girls who assemble and do
the work when a catch of prawns is bought to the premises are not
‘workers’ within the meaning of Factories Act.
The High Court certified this case to be a fit-case for an appeal
under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.

ISSUE
Whether the workmen doing work in the premises of the
respondents are workers within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the
Factories Act?

RULE
Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948
ANALYSIS
The Court opined that the scheme of the Factory Act enables the
Court to apply the test formulated under Dharangadhara Chemical
Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra, a case under the Industrial
Disputes Act, to the Factories Act.

CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court held that the question of principle with regards
to the determination of ‘workers’ within the meaning of Factories
Act has been already settled and the application of the principle to
the facts of a particular case does not make it a fit case for the
Supreme Court within Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution.