STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JAMNABAI PURSHOTTAM ASAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Maharashtra appeals against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated November 8, 1963 by which the High Court set aside the conviction of one Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas (since deceased and represented by his widow) and the fine imposed on him, under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 3-A of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1950. Only one question arises in this appeal and it is the true construction of Section 85 of the Factories Act on which different views have been expressed by the High Court and the Court below.

(2.) Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas was a lessee from the Port Trust Bombay of an open plot of land. He established a factory called the Sunderdas Saw Mills. He closed down the factory on April l, 1957. In July 1957, the ex-workers of the factory combined together to form five partnerships and by agreements of leave and licence, Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas gave in their use the premises of the factory and the machinery installed there. He himself did not join any of the five partnerships. The licensees were to pay a fixed sum for the use of the premises and the machines. It appears that some of the workers who were not taken in as partners complained that the closure of the factory was a sham. No action was taken on this complaint and there is no finding in this case that the closure of the factory was unreal.

(3.) In the year 1959, a prosecution was started under Section 92 of the Factories Act on the charge that the original licensee of the factory had not given notice under Section 7(1) of the start of the factory and had not renewed the licence under Rule 4 of the Bombay Factories Rules 1950. This ended in an acquittal since Government had not declared these premises as a factory under Section 85 of the Act, as it could, if the workers (although not employed by the owner) were working with the permission of or under an agreement with the owner. After notification the premises are deemed to be a factory and the owner of the premises is deemed to be an occupier.