Persons engaged in the manufacturing process are workers.

This Revision Petition is directed against the conviction of the petitioner for offences under clauses (a) and (d)of sub-section (1) of section 6 and also under section 7 read with section 92 of the Factories Act (LXIII of 1948). The petitioner is the managing partner of a firm known by the name “Gujarat Travancore Agency” doing business at Mattanchery. This firm is dealing in pepper and in that connection the process of drying, garbling and packing of pepper is being carried on in the premises of the firm at Mattanchery. According to the prosecution the work thus carried on by this firm amounts to a manufacturing process as contemplated by the Factories Act and more than 20 persons are being regularly engaged by the petitioner to have this work done. On this basis it is contended that the petitioner has been running a factory as defined in the Factories Act and the petitioner’s position is that of the occupier of the factory.

On 10th November, 1953, P.W.1 who is the Inspector of Factories, Northern Division. Alwaye, inspected the premises and on conducting the necessary inquiries he was satisfied that the petitioner was running the factory without complying with the requirements of the Factories Act and has thus committed certain offences made punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act. Section 112 of the Act empowered the State Government to make “rules providing for any matter which, under any of the provisions of the Act, is to be or may be prescribed or which may be considered expedient in order to give effect to the purposes of this Act.” In exercise of this power, a set of Rules were made and published by the State Government in the Gazette, dated 15th July, 1952. These Rules include rules contemplated by clauses (a) and (d)of section 6(1) of the Factories Act. This section deals with the approval, licensing and registration of factories and clause (a)states that the State Government may make rules requiring the previous permission in writing of the State Government or of the Chief Inspector to be obtained or 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. Similarly clause (d)of the section provides for mating rules requiring the registration and licensing of factories or any class or description of factories, and prescribing the fees payable for such registration and licensing and for the removal of licenses. Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules already referred to are the relevant rules as contemplated by clauses (a) and (d)of section 6(1) of the Act. The petitioner has been conducting the pepper business in the premises of his firm without applying for and obtaining the permission of the State Government or of the Chief Inspector for conducting the business at the particular site and also without obtaining the necessary registration and the license, and thus he is alleged to have contravened clauses (a) and (d) of section 6(1) and rules 3 and 4 of the Rules made under the Act. Sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Act requires the occupier to give a written notice to the Chief Inspector at least 15 days before he begins to occupy or use any premises as a factory, containing the several particulars as enumerated in the sub-section. Rule 12 also deals with the same matter. No such notice was given by the petitioner. Contravention of these requirements of the Act and Rules made under it, is made punishable by section 92 ofthe Act. That section states that the occupier and manager of the factory, on conviction of such an offence, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or a fine which may extend to Rs. 500, or with both.

P.W.1 prosecuted the petitioner for the offences already mentioned, by preferring a complaint after obtaining the sanction contemplated by section 105 of the Act. The main defence of the petitioner is that he is not running a factory as defined in the Factories Act and