C RAMAKRISHNA Vs. CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these two writ petitions are brothers. THEy are licenced to produce salt. THEy own saltpans at Chunampet, Mathuranthakam Taluk, Chengalpattu District. THE Inspector of Factories, Cuddalore, treated the saltpans owned by the petitioners as covered by the Factories Act LXIII of 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and on the ground that certain irregularities were noticed, on inspection wanted to prosecute proceedings under the Act on that basis. THE petitioners appealed against the orders of the Inspector of Factories to the Chief Inspector of Factories, Madras contending that the salt pans are owned by them, the operations that are being carried on in the said saltpans and the persons employed therein would not come within the purview of the Act. THE appeals have been rejected by the Chief Inspector of Factories, Madras. THE petitioners have impugned the orders of the Chief Inspector of Factories, Madras, in the present writ petitions. THE petitioners repeat their contentions on merits with reference to the inapplicability of the provisions of the Act to the salt pans owned by them. But the primary ground of attack that has been projected by Mr. R. Rajaram, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that the Chief Inspector of Factories, Madras while hearing the appeals under the Act, is exercising quasi-judicial powers and the rejection of the appeals without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to present their case in person, is not only violative of the principles of natural justice but also runs contra to the mandates of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed by the State of Tamil Nadu under the Act. Section 107 of the Act deals or with appeals and it runs as follows:

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, in the instant cases no such opportunity has been afforded to either of the petitioners. No date for the hearing of the appeals was fixed and notified to either of the petitioners. The disposal of the appeals in a summary manner runs contra to the well-accepted norms of disposals of appeals by the quasi-judicial tribunal as indicated above. This is besides the construction which I have spelt out on the provisions of the section as well as the rule referred to above, which in my view, do indicate that there should be a hearing of the appeal in the presence of either the appellant or his authorised representative before orders are passed thereon. These factors compel me to interefere in writ proceedings and accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the matter will stand remitted back to the Chief Inspector of Factories, Madras for him to dispose of the appeals in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations. There will be no order as to costs in these writ petitions.