Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant, employing fewer than fifty workers, was an industrial undertaking requiring a licence under Section 11 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 to manufacture potable alcohol.
Analysis: The statutory scheme treats a premises as a factory only if the prescribed worker threshold is met. An industrial undertaking under the Act is one carried on in one or more factories. Since the appellant employed only 22 workers, its unit did not qualify as a factory and therefore did not fall within the definition of an industrial undertaking. On that footing, the licensing requirement for new industrial undertakings under Section 11 was inapplicable. The State's power under Entry 8 of List II was also recognised in relation to intoxicating liquors, and nothing in the material showed any separate necessity for a Central licence in the appellant's case.
Conclusion: The appellant was not required to obtain a licence under Section 11 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and its tender for manufacture of potable alcohol had to be considered in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A unit that does not satisfy the statutory definition of a factory cannot be treated as an industrial undertaking for the purpose of the Central licensing regime under Section 11 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951.