JAMNABAI PURSHOTTAM ASAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order of conviction under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, read with Rule 3 A of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1950, is being challenged by this appeal The main question which arises in the appeal is as regards the true construction of Section 85 of the Factories Act The question is whether a person in the position of the accused, who has no control over or interest in the manufacturing process earned on in the factory and who is not concerned, directly or indirectly, with the engagement of the workers who work in the factory, is compellable to comply with the diverse requirements of the Factories Act.

(2.) AN open plot of land belonging to the Port Trust was taken on lease by the accused Purshottamdas Ranchod-das He constructed sheds over the plot and in the year 1908 he started a factory therein called the Sunderdas Saw Mills The factory was closed down or the 1st of April 1957 and though the Stale has sought to suggest that the closure was a mere camouflage, there is no clear material on the record to bear out that suggestion In July 1957 five partnership units were formed by the ex-workers of the Sunderdas Saw Mills and by written agreements of leave and licence the accused agreed to give to the five units the use of the sheds and the machinery of his factory The accused himself was rot a partner in any of the five partnership units and the arrangement, as reflected in the agreements of leave and licence, was that the five units were to run the business on their own and were to pay a fixed sum to the accused m consideration of the us of the sheds and the machinery

(3.) SOON after the partnerships started to function, some of the ex-workers of the Sunderdas Saw Mills, who were not admitted to the newly formed partnerships, complained to the Conciliation Officer that the closure of the factory was unreal, that the five partnership units were in truth and substance a mere splitting up of the old factory and that, therefore, the workers should be reinstated. The Conciliation Officer made a report to the Government which, through its Under Secretary in the Labour and Social Welfare Department, wrote a letter to the Manager of the Bunderdas Saw Mills that there was no case for referring the dispute for adjudication under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as