1. The appellants have claimed exemption in terms of Notification No.54/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975 on the ground that number of workers employed in the workshop did not exceed 10. In the impugned order, the Collector has observed that in the month of August, 1978 and September, 1978, they had employed two more workers namely Shri Kavobale and Shri Sarode in addition to regular eight workers making the strength in each of the two months to ten which was more than the permissible limits of nine workers under Factories Act. Similarly, during subsequent months of January, 1979, September 1980 and October 1980 the party had employed ten, eleven and ten workers respectively which again were more than the permissible strength under Factories Act. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that two persons mentioned above i.e., Shri Kavobale and Shri Sarode are watchmen and they have not taken any part in the manufacturing process of the concerned unit and they do not come under the definition of workman. In this connection, Shri Jagesh relied upon the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Government Soap Factory, Bangalore v. Labour Court, Bangalore and Ors., reported in AIR 1970 Mysore 225. He referred to the relevant portion wherein it was observed that it was difficult to subscribe to the view that mere keeping information regarding work done by persons handling machines could be regarded as being incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process. It was also observed therein that the expression 'incidental to, or connected with' should be construed so as to imply proximate and not remote relationship between the work of the employee in question and the manufacturing process and that unless there was such proximate relationship a work done by an employee could not be said to be incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process.
On the work done by watchman of the factory "we think the relationship between the work done by respondent 2 & 3 as watchmen of the Factory and the manufacturing process or the subject of the manufacturing process, is too remote to regard such work as being incidental to, or connected with the manufacturing process. Likewise, the relationship between such work and the articles which are the subject of the manufacturing process is also too remote to regard such work as being incidental to, or connected with, subject to the manufacturing process".
3. We have carefully considered the matter. In the absence of any contrary decision with regard to the issue whether watchman can be regarded as workman and in view of the decision referred to above by the Counsel, we hold that watchman cannot be considered as workman as defined for the purpose of construing unit of the appellant as Factory.
Accordingly, we direct the Commissioner to delete the names of watchmen for the purpose of computation of number of workers employed in the Factory and subject to this, he may consider the eligibility of benefit in terms of Notification No. 54/75-C.E., if the workers are employed below ten during the relevant period.