SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1961 Supreme(SC) 189

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
17th April 1961
K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
John Donald Mackenzie and another Appellants
Versus
The Chief Inspector of Factories, Bihar, Ranchi and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 399 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General, for India (M/s. N. C. Chakrabarty and B. P. Maheshwari, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. D. P. Singh, Advocate, for Respondents.

Advocates:
B.MAHESHAVARI, D.P.Singh, M.C.SETALVAD, N.C.CHAKRAVARTI

The ultimate control over a factory must necessarily be with the owner unless the owner has completely transferred that control to another person.

Headnote:

FACTORIES ACT, 1948 - SECTION 2(N) - OCCUPIER - INTERPRETATION - ULTIMATE CONTROL OVER AFFAIRS OF FACTORY - WHO IS?

Fact of the Case:

Bata Shoe Co. applied for renewal of its factory license. The Chief Inspector of Factories rejected the application because it was signed by the manager, not the occupier, as required by the Factories Act. The company argued that the manager had ultimate control over the factory and was therefore the occupier.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the manager was not the occupier because the company had not transferred ultimate control of the factory to him. The court noted that the company had not provided any evidence of such a transfer, such as a document or resolution.

Issues: Whether the manager of a factory is the occupier for the purposes of the Factories Act, 1948.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the term "occupier" in the Factories Act, 1948, means the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. The court further held that the ultimate control over a factory must necessarily be with the owner unless the owner has completely transferred that control to another person.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the company's appeal and upheld the Chief Inspector of Factories' decision to reject the application for renewal of the factory license.

Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. : This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Patna dismissing the petitioner s petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

2. Petitioner No. 1 has described himself as the Manager and Occupier of the Bata Shoe Co s factory at Digha in Bihar. The petitioner No. 2 is the Bata Shoe Co., Private Ltd. Calcutta. The Chief Inspector of Factories. Ranchi, called upon the occupier of the Bata Shoe Co s factory at Digha by letter deated September 6, 1956, to renew the factory s license for the year 1957 by making an appropriate application within 60 days of the expiry of the licesce for the previous year ending on December 31, 1956, and drew his attention to r. 7 of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950. At the end of that letter he added the following note:

"Note. There have been a lot of mistakes found in last years in the application for renewal and in the notice of occupation which created a lot of difficulties in renewing the licence by this office. Please be careful while filling up these informations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." On receipt of this letter an application for the renewal of the licence was sent to the Chief Inspector of Factories. This application was signed by the first petitioner Mackenzie. Upon receiving this application the Chief Inspector addressed a letter dated November 20, 1956, in which he stated that Mackenzie appears to be only the manager of the factory and pointed out that the application as well as the notice of occupation are required to be signed by the occupier. He drew the attention of the Factory to S. 2(n) and S. 100 of the Factories Act, 1948, and observed:

"In Section 100 the criterion for determining as to who was the occupier of a factory has been very clearly specified and in my opinion there should be no difficulty in understanding the same.

In case there is any managing agency of the factory, the managing agents would be treated to be the occupier which means the directors of the firm of the managing agents. Also as provided in sub-section (2) of section 100 in case of a company the directors or the shareholders are to be treated as the occupiers."

He then enquired from the factory whether Mackenzie was one of the directors of the company and said that if he was not a director should be submitted within 15 days of the receipt of the letter. One in 15 days of the receipt of the letter. One Chatterji who described himself as Chief Secretary of the Bata Shoe Co., sent a reply to the Chief Inspector of Factories on November 22, 1956, in which he pointed out that "occupier" is not equivalent to owner but means only a person who has control over the affairs of the factory. He also observed :

"We have factories at various places and our Digha Branch Factory is in charge of Mr J. D. Mackenzie who is the person having ultimate control of the affairs of the factory. Mr. Mackenzie is therefore in our submission, the occupier within the meaning thereof as defined by section 2(n)". He called upon the Chief Inspector, therefore, to renew the licence. The Chief Inspector, in his reply dated December 20, 1956, stuck to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the law placed by him in his earlier communication and again called upon the factory to submit an appropriate application for renewal of the licence of the factory. Treating this as an order of the Chief Inspector of Factories the petitioners moved the High Court at Patna for quashing it. Various contentions were raised before the High Court on behalf of the petitioners but they were rejected. They have, therefore, come up to this Court in appeal.

3. The only point pressed before us on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 Mackenzie had the ultimate control over the affairs of the factory and, therefore, he must be regarded as the occupier as defined in S. 2(n) of the factories Act. That section defines "occupier" thus :

" occupier of a factory means the person who has ultimate





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top