ANNAMMA JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the proprietor of a unit engaged in the manufacture of bakery and confectionary products. Exts. P2 and P3 are licences issued under the Factories Act, 1948 to the petitioner for the manufacture of bakery items and confectionary items respectively. It is the petitioner's case that it employs nine workers in the bakery manufacturing unit and 19 workers in the confectionary manufacturing unit. When the petitioner constructed a new building in May, 2001, for use as a factory, it submitted Ext. P4 return before the 3rd respondent Tahsildar indicating that it was making a claim for exemption from the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act on the ground that the building was used principally as a factory. By Ext. P6 communication, the petitioner was informed by the 3rd respondent that the exemption sought for could not be granted since the petitioners building did not come within the definition of factory under the Factories Act, in that it did not have either 10 or 20 workers as contemplated for factories running with and without the aid of power respectively. It was also pointed out that the issue had been referred to the Government for a decision in terms of Section 3(2) of the Kerala Building Tax Act. Thereafter by Ext. P9 order dated 07.03.2007, the petitioner was informed that the building could not be granted the exemption from the provisions of the Kerala Building Tax Act insofar as it did not come within the definition of factory under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948. Ext. P9 is impugned in the writ petition.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein Ext. P9 order passed by the Government is sought to be justified on the ground that the definition of factory under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act clearly contemplates that there had to be an engagement of at least 10 or 20 workers depending upon whether the factory was run with the aid of power or without the aid of power. In the instant case, it was found that the factory employed less than the number of workers stipulated in Section 2(m) of the Factories Act and consequently could not be considered as a factory for the purposes of that Act. Further, since the Kerala Building Tax Act did not contain a separate definition for factory, the State Government was of the opinion that the definition applicable for the purposes of the Factories Act, 1948 would govern the grant of exemption under the Kerala Building Tax Act as well.

(3.) I have heard Sri. V.K. Sunil, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.