9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "occupier" in the Factories Act. 2. Requirement of proper application for renewal of factory license. 3. Failure to demonstrate transfer of ultimate control over the factory to the petitioner. Analysis: The case involved an appeal from the High Court of Patna regarding the dismissal of a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The dispute arose when the Chief Inspector of Factories called for the renewal of a factory license for the Bata Shoe Co.'s factory in Bihar. The issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "occupier" under the Factories Act, which defines it as the person having ultimate control over the factory. The petitioners argued that Mackenzie, the manager, had ultimate control and should be considered the occupier. However, they failed to provide evidence of the transfer of control from the company to Mackenzie, as required by law. The Chief Inspector rightly requested a proper application for renewal, signed by the occupier, as per the Act's provisions. The petitioners contended that Mackenzie, as the manager, had ultimate control over the factory and should be recognized as the occupier. However, the court emphasized that ownership and control are distinct concepts, and ultimate control typically rests with the owner unless transferred. In this case, the petitioners failed to demonstrate any formal transfer of control to Mackenzie through documentation or resolution. The correspondence between the parties did not provide evidence of such transfer, as requested by the Chief Inspector. Consequently, the Chief Inspector's refusal to accept the application signed by Mackenzie was deemed appropriate, and a proper application for license renewal was warranted. Despite the appeal to the High Court, the petitioners did not present evidence of the transfer of ultimate control to Mackenzie. As a result, the High Court upheld the dismissal of the petition, affirming the Chief Inspector's decision to require a valid application for license renewal. The appeal was subsequently dismissed with costs, highlighting the importance of complying with legal requirements and demonstrating the transfer of control in such matters.
|
