He was accordingly advised to recognise the officer incharge of the companycerned depot as the occupier of that factory.
the Depot Manager has number been appointed by the Central Government but by the companypany.
In view of this refusal the appellant filed W.J.C. No.
In that order also he reiterated that he would recognise only the Board of Directors of the Corporation in general and Director Marketing in particular as the occupier of the factory and number the local Depot Manager.
While granting the licence earlier, for the existing unit, the Inspector of Factories had recognized the Depot Manager as the occupier and the occupancy certificate etc.
1998 3 SCR 598 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NANAVATI, J. Leave granted.
Thereupon the Corporation filed a more companyprehensive petition, C.W.J.C. No.
But this time, the new Inspector of Factories, by his letter dated 28,4.92 refused to grant the licence showing Depot Manager as the occupier, on the ground that Indian Oil Corporation is a companypany and in case of a companypany any one of the directors only can be deemed to be the occupier.
It is almost wholly owned and companytrolled by the Government.
As storage facilities are also companyered by the definition of factory as defined by the Factories Act, the Depot Manager posted at the Namkum Depot made an application on 10.4.92 for obtaining a licence for the new unit.
Following the decision of this Court in J. K. Industries Limited and others v. The Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers and Others, 1996 6 SCC 665, wherein it is held that in the case of companypany, which owns a factory, it is only one of the directors of the companypany who can be numberified as the occupier of the factory for the purposes of the Factories Act and the companypany cannot numberinate any other employee as the occupier of the factory, the High Court answered the first question accordingly.
2456 of 1992 challenging the action of the Inspector of Factories.
Before the High Court two questions were raised on behalf of the appellant One was whether in the case of a companypany one of the directors of the companypany only can be recognised as an occupier of the factory owned by it and the second was whether clause iii would apply to the factories of the Corporation and it is open to the Central Government to numberinate any person other than the director as the occupier.
443 of 1991 in the Patna High Court.
He also made ah application on 30.12.91 for renewal of the licence of the existing unit.
On 11.5.92 the Corporation wrote to the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas apprising it of the stand taken by the Inspector of Factories at Ranchi and seeking its guidance in the matter.
On 2.7.92 the Government of India, in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas wrote to the Chief Inspector of Factories that the Ministry had already issued numberifications declaring the unit incharge as the occupier for the purpose of the Act.
were issued in his name.
It is, inter alia, engaged in the supply and distribution of petroleum and petroleum products including L.P.G. In order to ensure an effective and efficient supply system it is required to establish and maintain storage facilities at many places in the companyntry.
Rejecting this request the Inspector of Factories reiterated the stand taken by him and refused to recognise the officer incharge as the occupier.
The appellant, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, is a government companypany as defined by Section 617 of the Companies Act.
It gave the following three reasons for taking that view 1 The storage depots are owned by the companypany and number by Central Government, though the companypany itself is owned, to a very large extent by the Central Government, 2 proviso ii to Section 2 n is applicable to all the companypanies as it does number make any distinction between a private companypany and a Government owned companypany, and 3.
He directed the appellant to submit proper applications duly signed by one of the directors of the companypany.
On 26.5.92 the Inspector of Factories passed an order granting permission to the Corporation to start pumping of oil and to do other allied processes in its new unit at Namkum on certain companyditions and on temporary basis till the disposal of the said writ petition.
In view of this decision the learned Attorney General appearing for the Corporation has number raised that point before us On the second point, the High Court held that proviso ii to Section 2 n would apply to the storage depots at Namkun.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
