9911796707
TMI Blog1926 (8) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturing process (D.W. 1). 4. A factory as defined by Section 2(3) means any premises wherein, or within the precincts of which.... Pausing here for a moment it may be observed that these terms 'premises' or 'precincts' are the most comprehensive that can be conceived. Premises means the main building and its appurtenances, and lest that should omit any part of the establishment, 'precincts' are added which mean any adjunct. Therefore factory includes everything, machine rooms, sheds, godowns, yards. If within these premises or precincts mechanical power is used in aid of any process for altering, for transport or sale of any article, then these premises or precincts are a factory. The definition does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s there is machinery admittedly in aid of the process, then the premises would be a factory. 6. In Paterson v. Hunt (1909) 101 LT 571. the premises consisted of two rooms separated by a closed door. In one room several girls sorted rags by hand and in the other room a mechanical shaker for cleaning the rags was occasionally used for some of the rags. Lord Alverstone held that the process in question, sorting rags for sale, was not adapting for sale. This ruling would help the petitioner if the process in his factory were confined to sorting ground-nuts, a portion of which was occasionally cleaned by a mechanical shaker. But the fact that a mechanical decorticator is used on the premises carries the present case beyond the scope of Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sorting ground-nuts can be said to be incidental to the process or connected with the article subject of the process. The article subject of the decorticating process being ground-nut, it must be held that sorting that article is work connected with the article subject of the manufacturing process. No doubt mere sorting was held to be no manufacturing process in the case of rags Paterson v. Hunt (1909) 101 LT 571. but then the rags were not subject of any manufacturing process on the premises. They were simply collected, and the only mechanical process, which brought the case as their Lordships observed near the line, was the intermittent use of the shaker for some of the rags. The regular use of the decorticator for all the ground-nuts l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
