Mohan collect the tendu leaves from nearby forest during day time and along with his family roll them to bidies at night. He supply the finished product of bidies to nearby factory i.e., ABC Bidi Ltd.. Factory does the q

A person to be a worker within the meaning of the Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 must be a person employed in the premises or the precincts of the factory. As held by the Supreme Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. M. P. Singh (1960) 2 SCR 605: (AIR 1960 SC 569) field workers who are employed in guiding, supervising and controlling the growth and supply of sugar cane to be used in the factory are not employed either in the precincts of the factory or in the premises of the factory. Hence the provisions of the Factories Act do not apply to them. A workers or workman need to be employed in the factory. The concept of "employment" involves three ingredients, viz. employer, employee, and contract of employment. The employment is the contract of service between employer and employee where under the employee agrees to serve the employer subject to his control and supervision. The prima facie test for determination of the relationship between the employer and employee is the existence of the right of the employer to supervise and control the work done by the employee not only in the matter of directing what work the employee is to do but also the manner in which he shall do his work (Chintaman Raov. State of M.P. AIR 1958 S.C. 388). Therefore, 'supervision and control' is the natural outcome when a person is employed by another person. In Shankar Balaji Waje v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 Bom. 236, the question arose whether bidi roller is a worker or not. The management simply says that the labourer is to produce bidies rolled in a certain form. How the labourer carried out the work is his own concern and is not controlled by the management, which is concerned only with getting bidies rolled in a particular style with certain contents. The Supreme Court held that the bidi roller is not a worker. The whole conception of service does not fit in well with a servant who has full liberty to attend to his work according to his pleasure and not according to the orders of his master. Where the employer did retain direction and control over the workers both in manner of the nature of the work as 'also its details, they will be held as workers. Same rational to be applied here in the given case. Mohan is not a worker as there is no superstation control of the employer on him.