JYOTI SWITCHGEARS LIMITED Vs. CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the refusal to renew the licence of the petitioner-Company Jyoti Switchgears Ltd. by the Chief Inspector of Factories; Gujarat State the respondent No 1. herein. The petitioner will hereinafter be referred to as the Company and the respondent No. 1 as The Chief Inspector.

(2.) The company had come to be registered under the Factories Act and was granted a licence under the Act for the purpose of running a factory. When the original application had come to be filed it was signed by the then Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company who had signed as an occupier of the Company because at that time there was no Managing Director nor were there the Managing Agents. The licence came to be renewed year after year upto 1974 and an application was given on behalf of the Company on 10th October 1974 for renewal of the said licence for the year 1975. The said application was given in Form No. 3 prescribed by the Gujarat Factories Rules 1963 hereinafter referred-to as the Rules for brevitys sake. The said application had been signed by one Shri A. D. G. Chauhan as the occupier and Manager of the Factory. However the Chief Inspector by his letter dated 25th August 1975 received by the Company on 27th August 1975 returned the said form to the Company with a suggestion that the form duly signed by one of the Directors of the factory be submitted to him for necessary renewal. The Company thereafter addressed a detailed letter on 8th September 1975 requesting the Respondent No. 1 that Shri A. D. S. Chauhan who was the Manager of the Company was in the ultimate control of the factory as per the Resolution dated 9th August 1973 passed by the Board Of Directors of the Company and so in terms of sec. 2(n) of the Factories A4t 1948 he in was the occupier. Simultaneously with the application for renewal a move was made to get the original application for registration as amended in Column No. 10 by substituting the name of Shri A. D. S. Chauhan as the occupier of the Factory. As the Chief Inspector the respondent No. 1 did not think it fit to renew the licence of the Company for the year 1975 the present petition has come to be filed for two prayers namely (1) Column 10 of Form No. 2 under the Gujarat Factories Rules 1963 be declared null and void ar d beyond the rule-making power of the State Government; and (2) a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Con- stitution be issued quashing and setting aside the order contained in the letter of the first respondent dated 25th August 1975 and further directing the first respondent to renew the licence of the petitioner on the strength of its original application signed by said Shri A. D. S. Chauhan as the occupier of the said factory.

(3.) Mr. K. H. Kaji appearing for the Company took us through the various facts including the resolution of the Board of Directors which was submitted to the respondent no. 1 along with the application for amending the particulars of the original application for registration and licence. On behalf of the respondent no. 2. Mr. G. T. Nanavati tried to uphold the stand taken by the first respondent. Mr. Nanavati contended that the term occupier as defined in sec. 2(n) of the Factories Act in the context of various other provisions of the Act should be interpreted to mean either a director in the case of a public company or a shareholder in the case of a private company and a manager according to him could not be ever appointed as an occupier.