UDAYASINGH Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Criminal Original Petition is filed praying to call for the records in S. T. R. No. 4 of 2004 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ootacamund and quash the proceedings.

(2.) TRACING the history of the case, what comes to be known is that the petitioner is having a Green House at Mynala where pollination and cross-pollination of flowers are being done with the help of nature; that since the pollination is done by human hand selectively and thereafter the seed harvesting is done after 55 to 60 days of pollination and thereafter it will be sent to the Laboratory at Biddadi, Karnataka for further processing and for marketing and since there is no manufacturing processes is undertaken nor any marketing processes is conducted by the petitioner, the petitioner is not a factory as per the provisions of the Factories Act; that the respondent has issued a show cause notice dated 3. 3. 2004 calling upon the petitioner company to explain within 7 days of receipt of the said notice as to why the petitioner company should not be prosecuted for the irregularities explained to it in person on 21. 2. 2004 at the time of inspection i. e. (1) the petitioner has violated Rule B (1) Sub-Rules 3 (1) (2), Rule 6 (1) Sub-Rule 4 (1), (2) and (3) read with Explanation 12-B (5), Section 112 Explanation 103 of the Factories Act 1948 read with Tamilnadu Factories Rules 1950; that the petitioner sent a reply dated 15. 3. 2004 wherein it was brought to the notice of the respondent that the petitioner company is only having its green house and Nursery and by no stretch of imagination the Green House and Nursery could be brought within the definition of Manufacturing Process for holding the same to be a factory and that since the same is not a factory there is no question of obtaining any License or is utilizing a 10 H. P. Motor for drawing water from their own well for the purpose of drip-irrigation for plants in the green house and that therefore usage of 10 H. P. Motor for drawing water cannot lead to the conclusion that the petitioner is having a factory at Ootacamund and that there are no permanent workmen employed by the petitioner company and that the workers are transient and engaged for the purpose of maintaining the Green House and that since the operation of the petitioner company is purely agricultural and floricultural pollination operation, the same cannot at all be said to be a factory within the meaning of Factories Act and requested the respondent to drop the proceedings.

(3.) THE further case of the petitioner is that the respondent having been not satisfied with the explanation offered, lodged a complaint in S. T. R. No. 4 of 2004 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ootacamund for punishing the petitioner on ground that the petitioner violated the provisions of the Factories Act and Rules framed thereunder and requested the Court to take cognizance of the offence and punish the petitioner. On such averments, the petitioner would pray for the relief extracted supra.