STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus JAMNABHAI PURSHOTTAM ASSAR

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 808 · Decided: 25-04-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
•. 
v. 
JAMNABHAI PURSHOTTAM ASSAR 
April 25, 1967 
[M, HIDAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.) 
Factories Act, 1948, ss. 2(n), 85(1) (ii) and 93-0wner of premises 
giving on rent factory business and machinery to five firms of ex-work-
ers-Having no interest in or control over affairs of the firms-Whether 
"occupier''-Therefore whether liable to obtain ficences under Rule 3A, 
Bombay Factory Rules, 1950. 
The respondent had established a factory in Bombay which was clos-
ed in April 1957. In July 1957, the ex-workers of the factory combin-
ed together to form five pannerships and by agreements of leave and 
licence, the respondent gave in their use the factory premises and the 
machinery installed there. He himself did not join any of the five part-
nerships. The licensees were to pay a fixed sum for the use of the 
premises and the machines. 
By a notification on September 29, 1960, the State. Government spe-
cified the premises where the five partnerships were working as a fac· 
tory under s. 85 of the Factories Act, 1948, thus applying the provision 
of the Act to the premi,,es. On November 10, 1959 five separate com· 
plaints were filed against the respondent, whereby it was alleged that he 
was the owner and therefore an occupier under the Act of the Faetory 
where the workmen were working under an agreement with him within 
the meaning of s. 85(1) (ii) 
and that he had failed to take out five 
licences under Rule 3A of the Bombay ·Factory Rule, 1950. The respon· 
dent contended that the Act did not apply to him as he had no control 
over the five firms and he was not in a position to enforce the provi-
sions of the Factories Act. The trial Court held that the respondent had 
become an occupier by reason of the notification of September 29, 1960 
so that he was bound to obtain licences under Rule 3A, and he was fined 
for his failure to do so. The High Court however, allowed an appeal 
against th~ order of the trial Court. 
On appeal to this Court, 
A 
B 
c 
E 
F 
HELD : The respondent was not an 'occupier' of a factory within 
the meaning the definition in s. 2(n) of the Act as he did not have ulti-
mate control over the affairs of the five firms running the factory and 
the High Court had rightly held that s. 85(1) (ii) did not cover the pre-
sent case. [81 ID-EJ 
G 
The condition precedent for a notification under s. 85(1) (ii) is that 
the persons working in a factory (a) work with the permission of or 
(b) 
under an agreement with the owner. 
The section does not 'con: 
temoJate a case where the owner hands over the facto·ry on rent and the 
v.:orkers work .without his permiss.ion and not tmder an agreement with 
him. 
The High Court had considered the agreements between the res-
ponde~t and the workers and co!"e to the conclusion that the pa:rtnerships 
H 
were mdependent of the control of the owner and the workers could 
not be said to be working with his permission or under agreement with him· 
they had formed themselves into partnerships. taken the factory premises 0~ 
MAHARASHTRA V. JAM'SABHAI (Hidayatullah, I.) 
809 
A 
leave and licence and started their own business. 
In the·se circumstances, 
the condition> for the notification under s. 85(l)(ii) did not e'ist. [811F-
812AJ 
B 
n 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The respondent was not liable as an owner under s. 93(3l(ii) of tho 
Act as the machinery and plant had b:en specifically entrusted to the 
custody or 11~c of the five partnerships. 
(812F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
234 of 1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 8, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal 
No. 1135 of 1962. 
D. R. Prem, S. P. Nayyar for R. N. Sachthey, for the appel-
lant. 
P. A. Mehta .. V. I. Taraporcvala, P. C. Bhartari and 0. C. 
Mathur, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, J. 
The State of Maharashtra appeals against 
the .iudgment and order of the High Court of Bombay dated 
November 8, 1963 by which the High Court set aside the convic-
tion of one Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas 
(since deceased and 
repr~ented 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. 
Only one question arises in this appeal 
and it is the true construction of s. 85 of the Factories Act on 
which different views have been expressed by the High Court and 
the Court below. 
Purshottamdas Ranchhod

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