JUDGMENT

Dr. Anand, J.-Leave granted in C.A. No. 12552/96 SLP (C) No. 12498/96.

2. In this batch of cases, both in the writ petitions and in the appeals by special leave, short facts, which are not in dispute and are relevant for the discussion hereinafter, are that the Chief Inspector of factories called upon the petitioners/appellants to file applications seeking renewal of the registration of licence of their respective factories, signed by a director of the company in his capacity as the occupier of the factory and stated that a nominee of the Board of Directors, other than a Director, could not make such an application as an occupier. The correctness of that direction/opinion has been put in issue in all these cases. The petitioners/appellants have also called in question the constitutional validity of proviso (ii) to Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) as amended by Act 20 of 1987, as violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. The basic question which requires our consideration is whether in the case of a company which owns or runs the factory, is it only a director of the company who can be notified as