V H KOTECHA MANAGER LAKSHMIDAS PREMJI GHEE MERCHANTS AGRAHARAM Vs. REGIONAL INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This writ appeal is against the judgment of our learned brother Satyanarayana Raju J., whereby he dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution. The main question in this is whether the appellant who was carrying on the business of collecting ghee brought by various intermediaries from the several places in Guntur and other districts, packing the same in tins. and dispatching them to Calcutta, was employing 20 or more workers and was carrying on a manufacturing process within the meaning of the Factories Act LXIII of 1948 (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the Regional Inspector of Factories, Guntur, was not right in concluding that the petitioner was employing more than 20 workers and that the process he was adopting for the past sixty years was a manufacturing process. He states that he merely purchases ghee from various intermediaries for the same to be put in a bhandi, from which it is poured into tins which are sealed and sent to their Head Office at Calcutta. On 26/05/1955, the Regional Inspector of Factories issued a notice and threatened the petitioner with prosecution for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. The Chief Inspector of Factories to whom the petitioner appealed held that the premises was a factory under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner now contends that the work done in the Guntur premises does not involve any manufacturing process within the meaning of Section 2 (k) of the Act and consequently the two coalitions requisite for holding that he is governed by the provisions of the Act, viz., the employment oi 20 or more workers under Section 2 (m) (ii), and the carrying on a manufacturing process under S, !J (k) (i), have not been satisfied. The respondent on the other hand alleges that not only does the petitioner employ more than 20 workers, but he has the ghee melted and analysed chemically by chemists employed by him who having regard to the percentage of Oleic Acid and the R. M. value, grade it for the sake of uniformity, The petitioner, it is stated, is also licensed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Marketing to adopt the agricultural marketing standard and fix the agricultural market label to his product. In these circumstances, he is carrying on a manufacturing process. These averments, however, have not been controverted by the petitioner.

(3.) In order to determine whether the premises of the petitioner where ghee is melted, put into tins scaled and then sent to Calcutta, as stated above, constitutes a factory under the Act, it is necessary to examine the definition of the word factory set out in Section 2 (m) of the Act, which is as follows :