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

1977 Supreme(Cal) 10

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
P. K. CHANDA, B. C. BASAK, JJ.
SUDHIR KUMAR GHOSH
VERSUS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Criminal Revn. No.680 of 1975,
Decided On : 14 -1 -1977.

The expression 'site' in S.6(1)(a) of the Factories Act, 1948, includes not only a vacant land but also an already existing building.

Headnote:

FACTORIES ACT - S.6, R.3 - SCOPE OF RULE-MAKING POWER - CONSTRUCTION OF 'SITE' - WHETHER INCLUDES EXISTING BUILDING - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was accused of violating S.6 of the Factories Act, 1948, and R.3 of the West Bengal Factories Rules, 1958, for operating a factory without obtaining prior permission from the Chief Inspector of Factories. The petitioner argued that R.3 went beyond the scope of S.6 because it required permission for using an existing building as a factory, which was not contemplated by S.6.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that S.6 of the Factories Act, 1948, was wide enough to include a case where an existing building was sought to be used as a factory. The court interpreted the expression 'site' in S.6(1)(a) to include not only a vacant land but also an already existing building. Therefore, the court held that R.3 did not go beyond the rule-making power of the authority concerned and was valid.

Issues: Whether R.3 of the West Bengal Factories Rules, 1958, went beyond the scope of S.6 of the Factories Act, 1948, by requiring permission for using an existing building as a factory.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the expression 'site' in S.6(1)(a) of the Factories Act, 1948, to include not only a vacant land but also an already existing building. Therefore, the court held that R.3 of the West Bengal Factories Rules, 1958, which required permission for using an existing building as a factory, was within the rule-making power of the authority concerned and was valid.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and discharged the rule, upholding the validity of R.3 of the West Bengal Factories Rules, 1958.

JUDGEMENT

Bimal Chandra Basak, J.:- This application is directed against a proceeding before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Howrah, in Case No.1829 of 1972 and the order dated 2nd June, 1975 passed in the said proceeding.

2. The said proceeding arises out of a petition of complaint filed by the Inspector of Factories, West Bengal. The petition of complaint was filed on the basis that the petitioner before us has committed an offence under S.92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for contravention of S.6 of the said Act read with R.3 of the West Bengal Factories Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). The allegation made in the petition of complaint is to the effect that while visiting the premises known as Heat Treater Industries (Private) Limited situated at 12/9 Hrishikesh Ghosh Lane, P.O. Salkia, P.S. Golabari, on the 4th July, 1972, the complainant found that more than ten workers were employed in the manufacturing process which was being carried on with the aid of power. According to the complainant, the premises constituted a factory as defined under S.2 (m)(i) of the said Act but it was ascertained by the complainant that no previous permission in writing from the Chief Inspector of Factories, West Bengal as required under the provisions of S.6 of the said Act read with R.3 of the said Rules was obtained for the site on which the said factory was situated and for taking the buildings on such site into use as a factory. Upon such complaint being filed, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate who directed issue of process. The accused-petitioner before us duly entered appearance and several proceedings were taken therein. Ultimately it appears that on 2-6-75 an order was passed by the learned Magistrate on the petition filed on 12-4-75 by the accused-petitioner before us.

3. The contention of Mr. Ghosh appearing before us was firstly to the effect that the petition of complaint was barred by limitation. In this context Mr. Ghosh relied on the provisions of S.106 of the said Act. There is no merit in this contention.Under S.106 of the said Act no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the said Act unless complaint thereof is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. The petition of complaint is dated 3-10-72 and it appears from the order-sheet that cognizance was taken on the very same date. In the petition of complaint it has been stated that on 4-7-72 certain facts were found which is the basis of the alleged commission of the offence. In that view of the matter it is clear that the cognizance was taken within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector with in the meaning of the said section. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in rejecting this contention of Mr. Ghosh.

4. The main submission of Mr. Ghosh before us was on the basis of S.6 of the said Act. Before we deal with the submissions of Mr. Ghosh it would be relevant to set out the provisions of S.6 of the said Act and R.3 of the Rules framed under the said Act which we hereby do.

"Section 6 (1): The State Government may make rules-

(a) requiring the previous permission in writing of the State Government or the Chief Inspector to be obtained for the site on which the factory is to be situated and for the construction or extension of any factory or class or description of factories."

Rule 3: No building shall be constructed, extended or taken into use as a factory, or a part of a factory on any site unless previous permission in writing has been obtained from the State Government or the Chief Inspector for such construction, extension or use of the building on such site."

According to Mr. Ghosh R.3 framed under the said Act goes beyond the scope of S.6. He has submitted that the relevant provision of R.3 which requires previous permission in









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