Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Raj Kishore Prasad JJ.
Ram Chandra Prasad
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 404 of 1955 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 23, 1956
FACTORIES ACT - SECTION 85 - VALIDITY - DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER - NOTIFICATION - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 14 - EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS - DISCRIMINATION - ARTICLE 226 - WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS - FACTORY - DEFINITION - EXTENDED MEANING - PROVISO TO SECTION 85 (1) - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who owned an establishment of Ghanies (manufacture of oil) and Chakkis (flour milling), with only two employees, challenged the proceedings initiated against them under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, for contravention of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950. They sought a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings and a writ of mandamus directing the Inspector of Factories not to demand any license or license fee from them.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners' establishment was not a factory within the definition of Section 2(m) of the Act, as it employed less than ten workers. However, the Court also held that Section 85(1) of the Act, which empowered the State Government to declare that all or any of the provisions of the Act shall apply to any place wherein a manufacturing process is carried on with or without the aid of power, was valid and constitutional. The Court further held that the notification issued by the State Government under Section 85(1), applying all the provisions of the Act, except those mentioned in the notification, to any place in the State of Bihar wherein any manufacturing process specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification is carried on, was also valid and constitutional.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners' establishment was a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948? 2. Whether Section 85(1) of the Factories Act, 1948, was valid and constitutional? 3. Whether the notification issued by the State Government under Section 85(1) of the Factories Act, 1948, was valid and constitutional?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners' establishment was not a factory within the definition of Section 2(m) of the Act, as it employed less than ten workers. 2. The Court held that Section 85(1) of the Act, which empowered the State Government to declare that all or any of the provisions of the Act shall apply to any place wherein a manufacturing process is carried on with or without the aid of power, was valid and constitutional. The Court reasoned that the power conferred on the State Government was not an excessive delegation of legislative power, as it was limited to selecting and applying the provisions of the Act to specific places, without modifying or altering them in any way. 3. The Court held that the notification issued by the State Government under Section 85(1), applying all the provisions of the Act, except those mentioned in the notification, to any place in the State of Bihar wherein any manufacturing process specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification is carried on, was also valid and constitutional. The Court reasoned that the notification did not travel beyond the authority conferred on the State Government by Section 85(1) and that it did not render nugatory the definition of a factory in Section 2(m) of the Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioners' application for a writ of certiorari and mandamus, holding that the proceedings initiated against them under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, were valid and that the petitioners were liable to pay the license fee demanded by the Inspector of Factories.
Raj Kishore Prasad, J.
1. This rule has been issued by the High Court, on an application, under Article 226 of the Constitutoin, presented by the petitioners. They have asked for a writ in the nature of certiorari to call up and quash the proceedings started by opposite party No. 3, under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Act LXIII of 1948), hereinafter referred to as "the Act".
They have further prayed for a writ of mandamus against opposite party No. 2, who is the Inspector of Factories, Patna Circle, directing him noli to demand any. licence, or licence fee," under the Act, from the petitioners, in respect of their establishment. Cause has been shown against the rule by the Government Advocate on behalf of the opposite party.
The Inspector of Factories, Patna Circle, opposite party No. 2, has also sent his replies on the points raised by the petitioners.
2. The petitioners case is that they own an establishment, of Ghanies (manufacture of oil), and Chakkis (flour milling), ill Mahalla Morchapur, police station Chauk, Patna City, in which only two employees work; and; as such it is not a factory within the meaning of the Act, and, therefore, the provisions of the Act do not apply to it.
3. Opposite party No. 2, Inspector of Factories, inspected the petitioners establishment on the 10th April, 1955, and sent to them a copy of his report dated the 19th April, 1955, in which he mentioned that, in course of his inspection, he found on perusal of their licence that it had not been renewed since 1951, which was a contravention of Rule 7 of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950, and, therefore, they should apply for renewal of their licence within five days of the receipt of this letter, after depositing Rs. 62-8-0 (being the renewal fee plus default for the years 1951 to 1955).
It was further mentioned in the letter that this inspection report was being sent to the petitioners without prejudice to any legal action that may be taken against them as occupiers of the establishment.
4. The above direction of opposite party No, 2 not having been complied with, the petitioners were summoned by the Subdivisional Officer, Patna City, opposite party No. 3, to take their trial under Section 92 of the Act, for contravention of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950, framed under the Act. The petitioners, thereafter, moved this Court, on the 19th July, 1955, under Article 226 of the Constitution, and obtained the rule under consideration,
5. During the course o£ the hearing of the case, the petitioners filed a supplementary affidavit to the effect that petitioner No. 2, Ganga Prasad, was the nephew of petitioner No. 1, and both the petitioners belonged to, and lived in, the same family. They also attacked Section 85 (1) of the Act, and, the notification dated the 11th June, 1954, issued under it, as unconstitutional, ultra vires and invalid. They have also filed a copy of their reply, which they sent to the Inspector of Factories, in reply to his inspection report. This reply is annexure A to the supplementary affidavit.
6. The main contention of Mr. Basudeo Prasad, appearing in support of the rule, is that the establishment, owned by the petitioners, is not a factory within the meaning of the Act. He has relied, in this connection, on the definition of factory as given in the Act.
7. Factory has been defined, in Sec.2, Clause (m) of the Act, as follows:-
-
" factory means any premises including the precincts thereof.- (i) whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on, or;
(ii) whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on, -- but does not include a mine subject
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
