JOSEPH Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Writ Petition is against Ext.P11, an order rejecting an application made by the petitioner for exemption of his building from the levy of building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act on the ground that it is a factory eligible for exemption under S. 3(1)(b) of the said Act. It appears that the building in question is having a plinth area of 264.47 M2. Building tax was assessed on the building and finally the District Collector, the revisional authority, remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the Tahsildar. Before the Tahsildar, when claim for exemption was made, the Tahsildar referred the matter to the Government as provided under S. 3(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Government considered the matter and issued Ext.P11 and by this order, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the factory of the petitioner does not satisfy the condition specified in S. 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948. It is challenging this order, the Writ Petition is filed.

(2.) A reading of Ext.P11 shows that, in the building mentioned above, the petitioner has established an ice factory. For this factory, he has obtained SSI Registration and is also employing six workers. Apart from the SSI Registration Certificate, the petitioner has also produced a certificate from the Factories and Boilers Directorate. Inspite of all these documents, the claim has been rejected only on the ground that the conditions of S. 2(m) of the Factories Act are not satisfied.

(3.) Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 defines "factory". As per this section, an establishment to qualify as a factory, should have a minimum of 10 workers. It is on the basis that the petitioner's factory does not employ 10 workers, the minimum specified in the Factories Act, 1948, that the claim has been rejected. Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar, I am unable to uphold the reasoning in Ext.P11 order. It is true that a "factory" as defined in the Factories Act, 1948, should comply with the requirements of the said Act. This Act contains provisions for maintaining the health, safety, welfare, working hours, annual leave with wages etc. A small scale factory such as the one established by the petitioner is expected to satisfy these requirements of the Factories Act, 1948, Further, in my view, so long as the legislature has not denied the benefit of exemption to small scale industries, the number of persons employed in the factory can have no relevance when a claim for exemption from the building tax is considered. This is all the more so in a case where even according to the 1st respondent, the establishment in question is a factory. In such circumstances, the respondents could not have rejected the claim of the petitioner for exemption from building tax merely on the ground that the petitioner did not employ the minimum number of employees specified in S. 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948.