Rajangam, Secretary Distt. Beedi Workers Union, Petitioner v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, Respondents.

Factories Act (1948), Section 2(m) - Benefit of social legislations to bidi rollers - 95% of bidis actually rolled outside real factory - Benefits available under Act are available to those who do rolling of bidis in their own residence - Written schemes invited from Union and State Government for suggesting remedial measures to be taken to meet evils.

Ranganath Misra, C.J. and M.H. Kanta, J.

ORDER:

On the basis of a letter addressed to the Court Writ Petition No. 1262 of 1987 was registered as an application under Article 32 of the Constitution. Thereafter, the other petitions have been registered. The main grievance raised in the writ petitions is that while the bulk of the manufacturing process of bidis is carried outside the factories by women and children in their respective residence, with the raw materials supplied by the factory owners and the manufactured bidis are collected by them, the actual rollers are not being paid their legitimate dues and have been deprived of sharing the several benefits provided by beneficial statutes and employment contrary to law is being tolerated and no attention is being devoted in enforcing the statutory provisions...

...The defects which have been summarised... are mainly the following:

1. The prevailing practice is that the passbook is opened in the name of the head of the family and the names of actual persons engaged in the manufacturing process are not recorded.

2. The Provident Funds Act is not at all implemented.

3. The wages paid are below the minimum rate of wages.

4. Children are employed which is against the spirit of the Constitution and is contrary to provisions of the Bidis and Cigars Act.

5. The wages earned by the rollers/manufacturers of bidis are shared between those involved in the process and the contractors.

6. There is no implementation of the payment of Bonus Act.

7. Maternity benefit is not extended.

8. Inadequate material is supplied but when there is shortfall the liability is saddled on the rollers.

9. There is improper maintenance of registers etc.

10. The denial of family pension.

11. The reduction of the production is arbitrarily done.

...The Acts which are relied upon or referred to are Central Acts intended to benefit the workers. It is not in dispute that about 95% of the bidis is actually rolled outside the real factory. This Court as early as 1958 in 'Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh... (AIR 1958 SC 388) indicated that the law relating to factory has to be extended to the place where manufacturing process, outside the factory, is carried on. The net effect of that position is that the benefit available under the Factories Act are available to those who are concerned with the manufacturing process even in their own residences for rolling of bidis.

The Commission has found that those who are engaged in the manufacturing process are exposed to health hazards.

There can be no doubt that both the Central and the State Governments have failed to effectively implement the laws and regulations so as to provide benefits to the actual manufacturers. We have discussed the matter with counsel in Court and we are adjourning the matter for eight weeks to enable the Union of India, the State Government, Counsel for the employers and the petitioners to place before us written schemes, keeping in view the defects indicated and summarised above, for suggesting remedial measures to be taken to meet these evils...

(Source: AIR 1991 Supreme Court 216)