9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the site where the salt works are situated is "premises" within the meaning of Clause (m) of Section 2, Factories Act 1948. 2. Whether the salt is made as a result of any manufacturing process within the meaning of Clause (k) (1) of Section 2, Factories Act 1948. 3. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 106 of the Factories Act. 4. Whether the failure to obtain a licence for the factory constitutes a continuing offence. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the site where the salt works are situated is "premises" within the meaning of Clause (m) of Section 2, Factories Act 1948: The court examined whether the open land where the salt works are situated qualifies as "premises" under the Factories Act. The learned Magistrate initially held that the open land did not constitute "premises" as envisaged under the Act, reasoning that the term "premises" should be limited to buildings or enclosures encircled by walls. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the term "premises" should include lands. The court drew an analogy from the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which defines "premises" to include any land not used for agricultural purposes. The court emphasized that the welfare of workers should not be discriminated based on whether they work in buildings or on open lands. The court concluded that the term "premises" in Clause (m) of Section 2 must be construed to include lands. 2. Whether the salt is made as a result of any manufacturing process within the meaning of Clause (k) (1) of Section 2, Factories Act 1948: The learned Magistrate initially held that no manufacturing process was involved in the preparation of salt by solar evaporation of sea-water, as it did not involve making, altering, washing, cleaning, or breaking up. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the intervention of human agency in the process, such as preparing reservoirs, tapavanis, and crystallization pans, constitutes a manufacturing process. The court noted that the workmen's activities, such as separating sea-water from the sea and treating it in a particular manner, fall within the meaning of "otherwise treating" under Clause (k). The court concluded that a manufacturing process is indeed carried on at the salt works. 3. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 106 of the Factories Act: The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate initially dismissed the complaint, stating it was barred by limitation as it was made beyond three months from the date on which the commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the complainant. The High Court, however, held that the failure to apply for a licence was a continuing offence, and a fresh offence was committed each day the factory was operated without a licence. Thus, the complaint was not barred by limitation for the continuing offence of operating the factory without a licence. 4. Whether the failure to obtain a licence for the factory constitutes a continuing offence: The High Court held that the failure to obtain a licence for the factory was a continuing offence. Every day the factory was operated without a licence constituted a fresh offence. The court noted that the respondent committed an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act by failing to obtain a licence for operating the salt works, as required under Section 6 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1950. Conclusion: The High Court reversed the judgment of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, holding that the Wadia Mahal Salt Works are a factory and that the respondent committed an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act by failing to obtain a licence for operating the salt works. The respondent was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. The court emphasized that the welfare provisions of the Factories Act should apply equally to workers on open lands and those in buildings, ensuring no discrimination in the application of the law.
|
