Shyam Sunder v. State of Rajasthan
Rule established
Whether premises are a factory under the Factories Act turns on manufacturing process and worker numbers, not registration. A temporary seasonal operation can be a factory.
Facts
- Employer operated seasonal/temporary manufacturing premises
- Argued the operation was not a "factory" under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act
- Therefore, safety and welfare provisions should not apply
- State sought to enforce Factories Act provisions
Issue
- Whether premises used for a temporary seasonal manufacturing operation satisfy the factory definition under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948.
Held
- Factory definition is functional, not formal
- If:
- A manufacturing process is being carried on
- The worker threshold is met (10 with power, 20 without)
- The premises are a factory regardless of:
Ratio Decidendi
Whether premises are a factory turns on two functional tests: manufacturing process and worker numbers. Registration, permanence, or the employer's label are irrelevant. A temporary seasonal operation can be a factory.
How to use it in an exam
- Authority for functional interpretation of "factory" definition
- Use in Part C problems where employer claims premises are not a factory
- Key line: "In Shyam Sunder (1974), the Supreme Court held that the factory definition is functional: if a manufacturing process occurs and the worker threshold is met, the premises are a factory regardless of registration or temporary nature."
Source
Source: AIR 1974 SC 890; verified from chapter content
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.