LAWS(KAR)-2004-4-12

WELCOMEGROUP WINDSOR MANOR SHERATON Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On April 06, 2004
WELCOMEGROUP WINDSOR MANOR SHERATON AND TOWERS, BANGALORE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this writ appeal is whether the laundry division of the Star Hotel which the appellant-Company runs in Bangalore is a factory within the meaning of the factories Act. A learned Single Judge of this Court having answered that question in the affirmative, this appeal by the company assails the correctness of that view.

(2.) THE appellant-Company is running a hotel under the name and style of Windsor Manor in Bangalore. For the benefit of its guests, the hotel maintains a laundry which is used for the upkeep of the rooms, comfort of the guests and cleanliness of the linen used in the restaurants. The appellant had it appears assigned the laundry work to an outside agency on contract basis who was carrying on the said work within the precincts of the hotel. The Contractor had secured a registration under the Factories Act which it appears to have surrendered with the termination of the contract and removal of its machinery arid workmen from the hotel The hotel is ever since then running the laundry with the help of its own machinery and employees.

(3.) IT was in the above backdrop that the appellant received a letter from the Inspector of Factories asking the appellant to submit details about the laundry contractor and also whether the appellant-hotel had secured a licence for running the laundry division. In its reply dated 22-4-1997, the appellant informed the Inspector that Windsor Manor was a hotel and not a factory within the meaning of Section 2 (m) of the factories Act. The appellant thus insisted that there was no need for it to take any licence especially when the laundry service in the hotel was meant only for washing and ironing of housekeeping material for maintenance of rooms, beds, linen etc. The fact that the laundry contractor earlier engaged had taken a licence for the establishment was according to the appellant inconsequential.