9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 249, Act V of 1920 regarding the requirement of a license for using machinery for an industrial purpose. 2. Determination of whether looms used in a weaving factory constitute machinery under the Act. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought to challenge the finding and sentence of the Bench Court for failing to obtain a license under Section 249, Act V of 1920. The key issue was to interpret whether the looms used in the weaving factory fell under the definition of machinery for an industrial purpose as per Sub-clause (q) of Schedule V, Act V, 1920. The interpretation of the clause was crucial in deciding whether the petitioner was liable to obtain a license for using the looms. 2. The Court deliberated on the definition of machinery under the Act. The Public Prosecutor argued that anything posing a danger to human life, health, or property and used for an industrial purpose required a license. However, the Court analyzed the term "machinery" in detail, considering historical usage and modern interpretation. It was observed that machinery, in the context of the Act, referred to apparatus driven by power sources like steam, water, or electricity, excluding hand-operated devices such as handlooms or sewing machines. The Court emphasized the need for a clear criterion to define machinery under the Act to guide licensing officers effectively. 3. After a thorough analysis, the Court concluded that a collection of looms, known as maggoms, did not qualify as machinery under Schedule V(q) of the Act. The judgment favored the petitioner, setting aside the conviction and ordering the refund of the imposed fine. The decision clarified the limited sense in which machinery was understood under the Act, excluding hand-operated devices from the licensing requirement intended for powered machinery in industrial settings.
|
