Back
SYED JAFAR IMAM, RAGHUBAR DAYAL, N.RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, K.C.DAS GUPTA, J.L.KAPUR
Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bombay (Now Maharashtra) – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The primary legal issue concerns whether the Salt Works in question qualify as a "factory" under the definition provided in the Factories Act, 1948, specifically under clause (m) of Section 2 (!) .
The definition of "factory" includes premises where a manufacturing process is carried on, with the aid of power or ordinarily so carried on, and where a certain number of workers are employed, regardless of whether the premises consist of buildings or open land (!) (!) .
The term "premises" in the context of the Act is interpreted broadly to include land with or without buildings, not limited solely to enclosed structures (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The inclusion of the phrase "including the precincts thereof" indicates that the scope of premises encompasses entire areas, which may contain multiple separate buildings or open land, and is not restricted to buildings alone (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Act's provisions are applicable to open land where a manufacturing process occurs, and the term "place" used in the Act also supports this interpretation (!) (!) .
The process of converting sea water into salt at the Salt Works involves human agency and natural forces working together. Human effort is employed in various stages such as pumping sea water, maintaining crystallization beds, and harvesting salt, thus qualifying as a manufacturing process (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The process of salt production involves treatment and adaptation of sea water into salt, which aligns with the definition of a manufacturing process under the Act (!) (!) (!) .
The legal interpretation considers that the process does not need to occur within a building; it is sufficient that a manufacturing process is being carried on, whether in open land or enclosed structures (!) (!) (!) .
The opinion of authorities and previous representations do not alter the conclusion that the Salt Works fall within the scope of the "factory" definition under the Act, especially given the employment of human agency in the process (!) (!) (!) .
The court ultimately upheld the conviction, affirming that the Salt Works constitute a factory under the Act and that the appellant had rightly been convicted of working without a license (!) .
Would you like any further clarification or assistance with specific legal implications?
Judgment
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This is an appeal by special leave by Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala against the order of the High Court of Bombay allowing an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the appellant of an offence under S.92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Act LXIII of 1948), hereinafter called the Act, for his working the Wadia Mahal Salt Works situate at Wadala, Bombay, without obtaining a licence under S. 6 of the said Act read with R. 4 of the rules framed under the Act.
2. The main question for determination in this appeal is whether these Salt Works come within the definition of the word factory under cl. (m) of S. 2 of the Act. The answer to this question depends on the meaning of the word premises in the definition of the word factory and on the determination whether what is done at this Salt Works in connection with the conversion of sea water into crystals of salt comes within the definition of the expression manufacturing process in cl. (k) of S 2 of the Act.
3. The Salt Works extend over an area of about two hundred and fifty acres. Some of the other salt works, however, have even larger areas. The only buildings on this land consist of temporary shelters con
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
