Factory occupier under the Act must be a company director; the deeming proviso is valid and enforceable.

In a company-owned factory, the occupier under section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948 must be one of the company's directors, because ultimate control rests with the board and the company cannot nominate another employee or officer. The proviso deeming a director to be the occupier was held to give workable effect to the statutory scheme and to support enforcement of the Act's health and safety obligations. It was also found to be intra vires and constitutionally valid, with no violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21, since it has a direct nexus with preventing evasion of responsibility and ensuring strict statutory liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in the case of a company owning or running a factory, only one of its directors can be notified as the occupier under section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948, or whether the company may nominate any other employee or officer; (ii) whether proviso (ii) to section 2(n) is intra vires the substantive provision and constitutionally valid under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether, in the case of a company owning or running a factory, only one of its directors can be notified as the occupier under section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948, or whether the company may nominate any other employee or officer.

Analysis: The amended definition of occupier was read with the statutory scheme introduced by sections 7 and 7A and the deletion of the earlier section 100. The main provision continues to refer to the person having ultimate control over the affairs of the factory, but in the case of a company that control lies with the company through its board of directors. The proviso creates a deeming fiction to identify, for enforcement and penal purposes, one of the directors as the occupier. A company cannot avoid the statutory scheme by authorising an employee or officer to be occupier when ultimate control remains with the company and its directors.

Conclusion: Only one of the directors of a company owning a factory can be notified as the occupier, and no other employee or officer can be nominated as occupier for the purposes of the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether proviso (ii) to section 2(n) is intra vires the substantive provision and constitutionally valid under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The proviso was held to be a valid exception that gives workable content to the main definition in the case of a company and does not conflict with it. The liability scheme under section 92, read with the safeguard in section 101, reflects strict statutory liability in a welfare legislation intended to secure health and safety in factories. The provision was found to have a direct nexus with the object of preventing evasion of responsibility by directors and ensuring effective enforcement. The possibility of abuse by the Inspector was rejected as a ground of invalidity.

Conclusion: Proviso (ii) to section 2(n) is intra vires the Act and constitutionally valid; it does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g) or 21.

Final Conclusion: The impugned directions requiring a company to have a director act as occupier for licensing purposes were upheld, the contrary High Court view was rejected, and the writ petitions and appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a company-owned factory, the occupier must be one of the directors because the company's ultimate control is exercised through its board, and the proviso deeming a director to be occupier is a valid, purposive mechanism to enforce strict liability under the welfare statute.

---