J.K. INDUSTRIES LTD. ETC. ETC. versus THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 798 · Decided: 25-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
J.K. INDUSTRIES LTD. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS AND 
ORS. ETC. ETC. 
B 
SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 
. ........._ 
[DR. AS. ANAND AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Labour Laws-Factories Act 1948-Sections 2(n) proviso (ii) (as 
amended in1987); 6(1)(e); 7; 7-A and 100(2) (omitted in 1987)-Factory 
c owned and run by a company-Occupier-Person in ultimate control of the 
affairs of the factory or only a director-Application for renewal or grant of 
factory licence-Direction by the Chief Inspector of factories-Only a director 
of the company is responsible and not any employee even otherwise 
nominated by the Boa1:d of Directors-Held, is a valid direction-In the case 
D of a. company, which owns a factory, it is only one of the directors of the 
company who can be notified as the occupier of the factory for the purposes 
of the Factories Act and the company cannot nominate any other employee 
to be the occupier of the factory-When the company fails to do so notify the 
Inspector off actories shall be at liberty to proceed against any one of the 
Directors of the company, treating him as the deemed occupier of the factory 
E for prosecution and punishment in case of any breach or contravention of the 
provisions of the factories Act or fo; offences committed under it-Proviso 
(ii) to Section 2(n) of the Factories Act is intravires the substanti~e provision 
of Section 2(n) of the factories Act. 
F 
Words & Phrases : 
'Occupier'-Meaning of-In the context of Factories Act 1948-l'erson 
who is in the ultimate control of the affairs of the factory--Held, person could 
be a company or a partnership or an association of persons or an individual. 
G 
b1te1pretation of Statute : 
Statute Law-f'roviw-Proper mode of interpretation of-Held, a Sec-
~.; 
tion and the proviso thereto must b.e construed as a whole each throwing light 
on the rest-Proviso (ii) is no ultra-vires the main provision of Section (2) of 
the Fact01ies Act-171ere is not conflict at all between the main provision of 
H Section 2(n) and proviso (ii) thereto. 
798 
J.K.INDS.LTD.v.CHIEFINSPECTOROFFACTORIESANDBOILERS 799 
Strict liability-The perJons punishable under the provision of Section A 
92 of the Factories Act are occupiers and managers-Held, Section 92 con-
templated a joint liability of the occupier and the manager for any offence 
committed irrespective· of the fact as to who is directly responsible for the 
offence-The offence under the factories Act are strict statutory offences for 
which establishment of mens rea is not an essential ingredient-The omission B 
or commission of the statutory breach is itself an offence. 
Constitution of India-Articles 14, 19(1)(g); 21 and 141-Con-
stitutionality of Proviso (ii) to Section 2(n) of the Factories Act-Held, valid 
and not ultravires of Articles 14, 19( l)(g) and 21-lt is not fair and proper to 
read a sentence from Supreme Cowt's judgment divorced from its context and C 
to build up a case treating that sentence to be completed law on the subject. 
The petitioners/appellants desirous of renewal of the registration of 
licence of their factories filed applications with the Chief Inspector of 
Factories, (the respondent). The respondent rejecting the applications of 
the appellants directed them to make an application duly signed by the D 
director of the company in his capacity as the occupier of the factory and 
that a nominee of the Board of Director, other than a Director, of the 
Company could not make such an application us an occupier. According 
to the respondent, section 2(n) with its proviso (ii) of the factories Act, 
1948 as amended by Amending Act of 1987, provides that in case of a E 
company, which owns the factory, the company cannot nominate any one 
of its employees or officers, except a director of the company, as the 
occupier of the factory. 
The appellants challenged the correctness of that direction in the 
High Court by way of a Writ Petition. The High Court d.ismissed the Writ F 
.Petition and held that the nomination of an occupier to be made by the 
company under proviso (ii) to Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948 as 
amended by Amending Act of 1987 can only be that of director and of no 
other officers or employee of the factory or the company which owns the 
factory. Hence these appeals. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, this court 
HELD : 1.1. There is nothing unreasonable in fixing the liability of 
a director of the company and making him responsible for complianc

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.