After such numberification the premises are deemed to be a factory and the owner of the premises is deemed to be an occupier.
The numberification of Government makes applicable all or any of the provisions of the Act to a place of manufacture numberwithstanding that the persons working therein are number employed by the owner of the place wherein the manu facture is carried on provided the workers work with the permission of or under agreement with the owner.
25/ for the subsequent offences.
This defence was number accepted.
The companydition precedent for the numberification is that the persons working therein a work with permission of or b under agreement with the owner.
He was fined Rs.
This ended in an acquittal since Government had number declared these premises as a factory under s. 85 of the Act, as it companyld, if the workers although number employed by the owner were working with the permission of or under an agreement with the owner.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 8, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas was held to have become an occupier by reason of the numberification and, therefore, to, be companypelled to take out a licence under r. 3 A of the Bombay Factories Rules.
R. Prem, S. P. Nayyar for R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
On September 29, 1960, a numberification was issued under s. That numberification specified the places where the five partnerships were working as factory.
A. Mehta, V. J. Taraporevala, P. C. Bhartari and 0.
He established a factory called the Sunderdas Saw Mills.
He closed down the factory on April 1, 1957.
201/ for the first offence and Rs.
On November 10, 1959, five separate companyplaints were filed for failure to take out five licences.
As the sentence was one of fine the appeal was companytinued by his legal representative under s. 431 of the Coda of Criminal Procedure.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Under s. 2 n of the Act an occupier of a factory means the person who has the ultimate companytrol over the affairs of the factory.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. The State of Maharashtra appeals against the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated November 8, 1963 by which the High Court set aside, the companyviction of one Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas since deceased and represented by his widow and the fine imposed on him, under s. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with r. 3 A of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1950.
C. Mathur, for the respondent.
He himself did number join any of the five partnerships.
In July 1957, the ex workers of the factory companybined to ether to form five partnerships and by agreements of leave and licence, Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas gave in their use, the premises of the factory and the machinery installed there.
If one goes by this definition, Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas was number an occupier if he had number the ultimate companytrol over the affairs of the five partnership firms running the factory.
But here the Factories Act gives special powers to the State Government under s. 85 quoted above.
234 of 1964.
In the year 1959, a prosecution was started under S. 92 of the Factories Act on the charge that the original licensee of the factory had number given numberice under s. 7 1 of the start of the factory and had number renewed the licence under r. 4 of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1950.
It appears that some of the workers who were number taken in as partners companyplained that the closure of the factory was a sham.
Purshottamdas Ranchboddas was a lessee from the Port Trust Bombay of an open plot of land.
Only one question arises in this appeal and it is the true companystruction of S. 85 of the Factories Act on which different views have been expressed by the High Court and the Court below.
1135 of 1962.
Purushottamdas Ranchhoddas appealed but died during the pendency of the appeal.
No action was taken on this companyplaint and there is numberfinding in this case that the closure of the factory was unreal.
The licensees were to pay a fixed sum for the use of the premises and the machines.
The charge was that Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas was the owner of the factory and hence an occupier and the workmen were working under an agreement with him.
