R E DSOUZA Vs. KRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in these cases is the same; and the result of the second case will follow the result of the first case.

(2.) THE petitioner has been convicted under S. 92 of the factories Act for using a building as a factory without obtaining the previous permission in writing of the Chief Inspector of Factories, for failing to apply for registration and grant of licence for the factory and also for failing to maintain a muster roll of the workers employed in the factory in one case, and for failing to give attendance cards to every person employed in the factory in the other case. He has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20/-in each case. He has also been directed under S. 102 of the Factories Act to rectify the defects within a specified period.

(3.) THE first question for consideration is whether the work done in the premises of the petitioner, viz. , peeling, washing, cleaning, etc. of the prawns, is a "manufacturing process" coming within S. 2 (k) of the Factories Act. Under S. 2 (k) "manufacturing process" is defined, inter alia, as "any process for making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing or otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal. " THE counsel of the petitioner argues that the peeling, washing, etc. of prawns done at the premises is not with a view that the prawns might be used, sold, transported, delivered or disposed of. He argues that the purpose of the work is only to send the prawns to the cold storage plant nearby owned by another person. I do not think this contention has any force. THE prawns are intended for use or sale or other disposal after they are peeled, washed, etc. and preserved at the cold storage plant. It may be that the petitioner is doing only a part of the process, which ultimately ends in the sale or use or disposal of the prawns. But, that does not mean that the work he is doing is not with a view to the sale or use or disposal of the prawns. THErefore, the work done in the premises of the petitioner is certainly a "manufacturing process".