9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the establishments are considered factories under the Factories Act. 2. Whether the Factories Act is applicable to hotels and restaurants. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioners owned three establishments preparing food and drinks for the public, employing workers. They sought relief from the enforcement of the Factories Act, claiming their establishments were not factories as defined by the Act. The Act defines a factory as premises where a manufacturing process is carried out with a specified number of workers. The court interpreted the Act's definition of a manufacturing process, which includes treating or adapting substances for use, sale, or disposal. The court found that the preparation of food and drinks in the establishments satisfied this definition. The number of workers employed also met the Act's requirements, confirming the establishments as factories under the Factories Act. Issue 2: The petitioners argued that the Factories Act, encompassing hotels and restaurants, exceeded the Central Legislature's legislative competence. They contended that inns and innkeepers fell under the Provincial Legislature's jurisdiction. However, the court reasoned that the Act's objective of regulating labor conditions fell within the Concurrent Legislative List entry related to the welfare and conditions of labor. The court cited judicial precedents emphasizing the need to determine the true nature and character of legislation to ascertain its legislative competence. Applying this principle, the court concluded that the Factories Act's essence was labor regulation, falling under the Central Legislature's authority. Therefore, the Act's applicability to establishments meeting the factory definition was valid. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with costs, upholding the application of the Factories Act to the petitioners' establishments.
|
