Industrial licensing threshold for distilleries: units employing fewer than fifty workers are outside the central licence requirement.

A distillery unit proposing to employ fewer than fifty workers was held not to fall within the Central Government industrial licensing requirement under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, because section 11 read with the definitions of "factory" and "industrial undertaking" is attracted only at that workforce threshold. The petitioner's pleaded employment level below fifty was not effectively disputed, so the premise that a central licence was mandatory could not sustain. On that basis, refusal of permanent registration and withholding of pollution-clearance processing solely for want of such licence was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's distillery unit, proposed to employ less than fifty workers, required an industrial licence from the Central Government under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and whether permanent registration and pollution clearance could be refused solely for want of such licence.

Analysis: The controlling principle applied was that the licensing requirement under section 11 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, read with the definitions of "factory" and "industrial undertaking" in section 3(c) and section 3(d), is attracted only where fifty or more workers are to be employed. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's exposition that distilleries employing fewer than fifty workers do not fall within the central licensing requirement. On the facts pleaded, the petitioner asserted employment below that threshold, and the respondents did not effectively dispute that position. Since the refusal of permanent registration and the withholding of pollution clearance were based on the premise that a Central Government licence was mandatory, that premise could not sustain.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not required to obtain a Central Government industrial licence on the footing adopted by the respondents, and the refusal to grant permanent registration or forward the pollution-clearance application on that ground was unsustainable.

---