7.Wives of three workmen employed in a textile factory work in place of their husbands for about half an hour every day after 7pm. While the latter take meals brought by them. Discuss if there is a violation of any provision of the Factories Act 1948.

In a textile factory, a peculiar practice emerged. Three male workmen, employed in regular shifts, would pause their work after 7 PM each evening. At this time, their wives would enter the factory and operate the machinery in their place. This substitution lasted for about half an hour. Meanwhile, the husbands consumed their evening meals, which the wives had brought along.

Though seemingly harmless, this routine raises critical concerns under labor law, particularly the Factories Act, 1948. The wives were not officially employed or registered with the factory. Yet, they handled machines and performed duties that involved physical risk and technical responsibility. This substitution blurred the line between lawful work and informal assistance.

Issues of the Case

The situation presents multiple legal and ethical issues:

1. Unregistered Labor: Can unregistered individuals lawfully work on factory premises?
2. Breach of Safety Regulations: Were safety and health provisions compromised by untrained persons operating machinery?
3. Violation of Working Hours and Shifts: Does this substitution affect compliance with regulated work hours?
4. Employer Responsibility: Can the factory management be held liable for unauthorized presence and activity?

The key concern here is whether the factory violated any mandatory legal provisions by allowing this unsanctioned arrangement.

Principles Related to the Case

The Factories Act, 1948 is designed to regulate labor in manufacturing units. It focuses on health, safety, working hours, employment conditions, and welfare of factory workers.

Several important provisions are relevant:

• Section 2(l): Defines a “worker” as someone employed for wages in any manufacturing process. The wives, not being employed or paid, do not fall under this definition.
• Section 62: Mandates a register of adult workers. The wives’ names were not in the register, violating this section.
• Section 27: Prohibits women from cleaning or operating any machinery in motion unless specifically authorized and trained.
• Section 85: Gives power to the State Government to extend provisions of the Act to smaller establishments, reinforcing the need for regulation even in less formal situations.

Further, Section 45 mandates the presence of trained medical professionals in the case of injury. If an unregistered person gets hurt, legal complications multiply.

Judgement

In interpreting such cases, courts have consistently emphasized strict adherence to the Act’s provisions. Allowing unauthorized persons—especially untrained women—to operate machinery not only violates safety norms but also raises accountability concerns.

In this instance, the factory management failed to:

• Prevent unauthorized access to the workplace.
• Ensure machinery was operated only by registered and trained staff.
• Uphold health and safety norms under statutory obligation.

Hence, there is a clear violation of the Factories Act, 1948. Both the employer and the workmen can be held responsible. The employer faces legal consequences for breach of statutory duty, while the workers may face disciplinary action under internal codes of conduct.

To conclude, while the intent may have been innocent—wives helping husbands during meal breaks—the action stands in direct conflict with legal provisions. Such practices compromise the structured framework established for worker protection, workplace safety, and legal compliance.