Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN
Anindya Dutta, Son of Anup Kumar dutta – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Director – IV (i/c), Industrial Safety and Health – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint details for violations of factories act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. argument regarding exemption under catering establishments act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. dispute regarding factory definition and application. (Para 8 , 10 , 14) |
| 4. discussion on jurisdiction and nature of establishments. (Para 12) |
| 5. court's observation on adherence to special legislation. (Para 21 , 28) |
| 6. catering establishments act's specificity overrides factory act. (Para 24 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. court quashes complaints based on jurisdiction issues. (Para 29 , 31) |
ORDER :
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
These Criminal Original Petitions to quash the complaint filed by the Deputy Director-IV, Industrial Safety and Health, Guindy, Chennai, for violation of FACTORIES ACT .
2. Gist of the complaint:-
On 22/09/2023, the premises situated at SLC MAA, Guindy Kitchen, G.R. Enclave No:2/1, Dhanakodiraja Street, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai was inspected by the Officials of Industrial Safety and Health Department and noticed that the premises is used as a ‘Factory’ by the Occupier-cum-Manager, wherein manufacturing of food being carried out by engaging 14 workers and using 23.75 HP machines without permission of the Director of Indust
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.
Staff canteens operated for employees do not qualify as 'restaurants' under the Act, thus are exempt from its provisions.
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....
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....
Workers under the Factories Act are defined by the existence of a contract of service, where control and supervision by the employer are evident.
The complaints were an abuse of process of court, as there was no violation of law and rules and regulations, and the complaints were filed belatedly. The non-mention of the show cause notice and its....
An establishment with fewer than ten employees does not fall under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, and arbitrary orders without due process violate principles of natural justice.
The judgment establishes the obligation to comply with the Inspector of Labour's order under the Act and the application of the Act to the Corporation and its employees.
The court held that only one director of a company can be prosecuted for violations under specific sections of the Factories Act, affirming a strict interpretation of legislative intent.
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
