The Inspector of Factories does not have the power to decide certain issues under the Factories Act, and the court may reject the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to investigate the factory's true position.

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.

The appeal is is filed questioning the correctness of the order dated 30.8.2007 made in Writ Petition No.20862 of 2007. In the said writ petition, the appellant herein sought for the relief of issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to ensure that the provisions of Factories Act, 1948 are duly observed in the factory of the fourth respondent company at Manali and that the learners and contract workers are not engaged in direct manufacturing process in the factory.

2. The above relief has been sought for on the basis of the following facts:

The fourth respondent Company is manufacturing nylon tyre fabric and nylon fabric for fish nets at its factory at Manali. The appellant trade Union is the only trade union in the factory representing all the 244 permanent workers. On 112. 2005, 150 trainees and apprentices were stopped from service. The fourth respondent Management has been steadily reduced permanent work force and simultaneously increased the trainees with an intention to gradually substitute the entire permanent work force in the factory with that of the learners and contract workers. The appellant Union objecting the same, on 20.3.2007, made a representation to the Chief Inspector of Factories,. Chennai – the second respondent bringing forth the fact that the Management is acting in gross violation of the provisions of the Factories Act and standing orders of the Company. Pursuant to the same, the Inspector of Factories conducted an inspection on 4. 2007 and sent a letter dated 20.4.2007 stating that at the time of inspection there were no trainees or apprentices found working in the factory. In respect of certain other violations that were found during inspection, after issuance of the show cause notice to the Management, criminal proceedings have also been initiated. But in respect of the allegation that the Management is gradually substituting trainees in the place of permanent workers, the appellant was informed that the authorities under the Factories Act are not proper authorities, and the appellant could work out his remedy before the appropriate authorities concerned. Not satisfied with the order above referred to, the appellant union filed the writ petition seeking the prayer as stated above.

3. By reason of the impugned order, the writ petition has been dismissed holding that

(a) the grievance of the appellant regarding reduction of permanent work force and employment of trainees in their place is pending conciliation before the Conciliation Officers and the appellant could prosecute the same if they so advised. (b) there could be no complaint against respondents 1 and 3 in respect of the grievance of the appellant, which is not within their purview. (c) The powers of the Inspector of Factories under Factories Act, 1948 is defined under Section 9, which did not empower the Inspector of Factories to decide the matter in issue. On the above reasoning and having regard to the admitted fact that in respect of the reduction of permanent work force and substituting the trainees in their place, the appellant union initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same is pending for conciliation non-suited the appellant for the relief as prayed for.

4. Mr.Prakash – the party in person raised a point for consideration before us in the form of proposition of law to the following effect:

"Whether the report of the Inspector of Factories is final or whether High Court cannot appoint an Advocate Commissioner to find out the true position existing in the factory?"

In line with the above proposition, he argued the matter and relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (AIR 1984 SUPREME COURT 802), which has been countered by Mr. Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and the counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

5. When this