Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.Mala, J.
Ennore Tank Terminals Private Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of Industrial Safety & Health – Respondent
W.P.No.8219 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.13011 and 8773 of 2021
Decided On : 26-06-2024
Factories Act - Writ Petition - Factories Act, 1948; Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948; Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 - The court held that the petitioner's premises are not covered by the Factories Act as the workers are classified as dock workers under the specific acts, thus prioritizing special legislation over general.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner operates a terminal for liquid products within a port and was issued a show cause notice for alleged violations of the Factories Act. The petitioner contended that their operations fall under the Dock Workers Acts, not the Factories Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the workers engaged by the petitioner are dock workers as defined by the Dock Workers Acts, and thus the provisions of the Factories Act do not apply to them.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's establishment is governed by the Factories Act or the Dock Workers Acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the specific provisions of the Dock Workers Acts take precedence over the general provisions of the Factories Act, as the workers are engaged in activities related to cargo handling within the port.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the respondent is restrained from enforcing the provisions of the Factories Act against the petitioner.
ORDER :
N.Mala, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondent from extending and insisting the petitioners to comply with the provisions of the Factories Act in respect of the petitioner's permises inside the Kamarajar Port Trust, Vallur Post, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur 600 120 pursuant to the show cause notice of the respondent in A/751/2021 and A/No/752/2021 consequential Inspection Report in proceedings No.TVR-URF/EIR/2021, dated 08.03.2021.
The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent from extending and insisting the petitioners to comply with the provisions of the Factories Act, in respect of the petitioner's permises inside the Kamarajar Port Trust, Vallur Post, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur-600 120, pursuant to the show cause notice of the respondent in A/751/2021 and A/No/752/2021, consequential Inspection Report in proceedings No.TVR-URF/EIR/2021, dated 08.03.2021.
2. Though the genesis of the writ petitions are the show cause notices, the writ petitions is entertained as the jurisdiction or competence of the respondents to invoke the factories Act against the petitioner is questioned.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The petitioner company is engaged in receiving liquid products from vessels coming alongside the jetty into the integrated tank farm terminal through pipelines and transporting the same through tanker, lorries or pipelines to its various customers. For the said purpose, the petitioner entered into licenced agreement with the Kamarajar port (formally Ennore Port Ltd.,) for development of jetty and an integrated tank farm within the port premises on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis for a period of 30 years from 2006 under the Public-Private partnership model. In pursuance of the licence agreement, the petitioner built the integrated storage tanks and terminals, which are located within the port premises as defined and notified by the Government in terms of the Indian Ports Act, 1908. The petitioner's aforesaid premises has valid licences from PESO and also under the Pollution Laws. The petitioner has compiled with the labour laws like ESI, EPF and the Contract Labour Abolition Act, 1970. While so, the petitioner's premises (Storage tank terminal) was inspected by the respondent on 18.02.2021. The respondent was of the view that the petitioner's premises was a factory and that the petitioner violated certain provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. Therefore a show cause notice, dated 08.03.2021 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner sent his reply to the show cause notice on 24.03.2021 denying that his premises was a factory and thereafter filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
4.The respondent filed a detailed counter and as the petitioner filed an additional affidavit, the respondent also filed an additional counter reiterating its stand that the petitioner's premises was a factory and justified the issuance of the show cause notice, which was issued for violation of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948. The respondent denied that the workers of the petitioner Company were covered by the provisions of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 and the Dock Workers (Safety, health and Welfare) Act, 1986 and the regulations framed thereunder.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS:
5. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner's premises is covered only by the Indian Ports Act, the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 and the Dock Workers (Safety, health and Welfare) Act, 1986 and not the Factories Act. The petitioner states that the only activity carried on by the petitioner is receipt and storage of petroleum products for re-delivery to its customers through tanker lorries and pipelines hence no manufacturing process is involved and consequently the factories Act is not applicable to it. According to the petitioner, 67 persons are employed by the petitioner and they are cov
The court established that when specific legislation applies to a defined group of workers, it prevails over general legislation concerning workplace regulations.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the responsibilities of the employer and principal employer under The Dock Workers (Safety, Health and Welfare) Act, 1986 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that boatmen are to be treated as dock workers and entitled to benefits under the 12(3) Settlement.
Point of law : If an order is not obligatory to be passed under the statute, no appeal would lie against the offence alleged under Section 7A(2)(c) of the Factories Act as is alleged in the case at h....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove that a private body was established to achieve a collective benefit for the public and was accepted by the public as havin....
Workers under the Factories Act are defined by the existence of a contract of service, where control and supervision by the employer are evident.
Grant of bail – Dowry death – Courts are duty bound to undertake deeper scrutiny of circumstances under which bail is granted in these case – Superficial application of bail parameters not only under....
It is well settled that at stage of issuing process, Magistrate is mainly concerned with allegations made in complaint or evidence led in support of same and Magistrate is only to be satisfied that t....
Establishments registered under the Tamil Nadu Catering Establishments Act are exempt from the Factories Act, as per Section 30, and the nature of activity determines legislative applicability.
The imposition of 1% cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers Act is a statutory obligation aimed at benefiting workers, and is applicable despite claims regarding the Factories Act exe....
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
