Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Salt Works Chatamatta vs The Chief Inspector of Factories, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Another

Gopalakrishnan Nair, J.—These petitions raise substantially similar questions and have therefore been heard together and can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.

The Petitioner in W. P. No. 140 of 1963 is the owner of "Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Salt works, CHARAMATTA" and the petitioner in W. P. no. 141/63 is me owner of "Sri Ambica Salt and Co., Poojmadaka". The Regional Inspector of Factories, Anakapalle, intimated in writing to each of the petitioners that this respective salt pan is a factory u/s 2(m)(1) of the factories Act. On this basis, he directed the petitioners to take steps for obtaining licence for the factory under the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.

Each of the petitioners preferred a separate appeal 10 the Chief Inspector of Factories u/s 107 in of the Factories Act. The chief Inspector rejected those appeals on the grounds that they did "not come under the purview of appeal against any written order, as per Section 107 of the Factories Act". The petitioners these two writ petitions asking for the orders of the Chief aggrieved by the rejection of their appeals have preferred Inspector to be quashed by certiorari.

The Chief inspector of Factories and me Regional Inspector of Factories, Anakapalle, who are the respondents, resist these petitions on the ground inter and that the orders passed by the Regional inspector (2nd respondent) were not appealable orders within the contemplation of Section 107 of the Factories Act.

The short point that falls for decision is whether the written intimation issued by the Regional inspector (2nd respondent) to the petitioners are orders from which an appeal Is provided u/s 107(1) of the factories act.

It is necessary to read the Section 107(1) . The manager of a factory on whom an order in writing by an inspector has been served under me provisions of this Act or the occupier of the factory may, within thirty days of the service of the order, appeal against it to the prescribed authority, and such authority may, subject to rules made in this behalf by the sure Government, confirm, modify or reverse the order."

The learned Government Pleader has laid particular, emphasis on the words "an order in writing by an inspector has been served under the provisions of this Act." His contention is that on a perusal of all we sections of the Factories Act and a consideration of the scheme of the Act, every written order made by an inspector is not an appealable order within the meaning of Section 107(1) of the Act. According to him, the words "an order in writing by an Inspector which has been served under me provisions of this Act," directly refer to certain specific provisions of the Act which also employ identical phraseology and which therefore indicate beyond possible order that only orders passed under them are appealable u/s 107(1).

My attention has been invited to Sections 15(3), 38(1), 39 and 40(2) of the Factories Act. All these provisions speak of an order in writing by an inspector and provide for its being served on the Manager of the factory. It is, therefore, legitimate to infer that appeals, which Section 107(1) contemplates are appeals from the orders in writing by an Inspector served on the Manager of a factory under Sections 15(3), 38(1), 39 and 40(2) of the Act. No doubt, sections 16(3) and 14(2) also speak of an order in writing. But that order is to be made by the Chief Inspector himself. Besides, these sections do not in terms require that order to be served on the manager of the factory.

Thus the scope and phraseology of sections 16(3) and 44(2) are quite distinct and markedly different from those or the other sections already adverted to and as I already indicated, the requisites of an appealable order mentioned in Section 107(1) entirely tally with those to be satisfied by orders under Sections 15(3), 38(1), 39 and 40(2). It, therefore, appears eminently reasonable to hold that it is only the orders passed by the Inspector under these sections that can be appealed against u/s 107(1). In the present case, no order was passed under any or these sections. Therefore, an appeal did not lie to the Chief Inspector u/s 107(1).

7 There is another and perhaps even more important reason for saying that appeals did not lie in the instant cases. Section 107(1) in express terms confers a right of appeal only on the "manager of a factory or on the "occupier of a factory". In the case on hand, the main contention of the petitioners is that the salt pans in question did not constitute "factories" under the factories Act. The entire complaint of the petitioners is grounded on the circumstance that the Regional Inspector of Factories expressed the view that their salt pans were factories as defined in the Act. In view of their stout stand that their salt pans are not factories, there can be no question or any manager of factory or ''occupier of factory'' in respect of their salt pans.

The persons who preferred the appeals to the Chief Inspector did not, therefore, satisfy the description of the manager of the factory'' or ''the occupier of the factory. As the right of appeal is conferred only on these two categories of persons and as the petitioners did not tan in either of these categories, they could not invoke me provisions of Section 107(1) of the Act for the purpose or filing appeals to the Chief Inspector. As Sri Ramamurthy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has repeatedly pointed out that the salt pans in question are not factories and that consequently none of the provisions of the Factories Act or any of the Rules framed thereunder can be applied to them, it is not possible to regard the petitioner as managers or occupiers of factory on whom alone the Statute has conferred a right of appeal, indeed, the petitioners disowned and disclaimed their character as manager or occupier of a factory: Section 107(1) could be invoked only by persons who claimed and owned to be managers, or occupiers of factories. For this reason, apart from anything else, thins it has to be held that the petitioners were not entitled to prefer appeals u/s 107(1) of the Factories Act.

It follows from the foregoing that the rejection of the appeals by the Chief Inspector was justified, although the grounds on which he rested their rejection were not good enough. These writ petitions fail and are, therefore, dismissed; but without any order as to costs in the circumstances of these cases.