Factories Act: Seasonal Factories Covered, Rules Upheld & Struck Down

The court held that Section 49 of the Factories Act, 1948 applies to seasonal factories, including sugar factories, even if they operate for a limited period. The court upheld Rule 6, which prescribes grades and pay scales for Welfare Officers, but found Rules 5, 7, 8, and 9 to be ultra vires as they exceeded the rule-making power under Sub-section (2) of Section 49. A writ of mandamus was issued to restrain the enforcement of Rules 5, 7, 8, and 9, with costs awarded to the petitioners.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 49 of the Factories Act, 1948 to seasonal factories.
2. Validity of Rules 5 to 9 framed under the Factories Act, 1948.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 49 of the Factories Act, 1948 to Seasonal Factories:

The petitioners contended that Section 49 of the Factories Act, 1948 should not apply to sugar factories because these factories employ 500 or more workers only during the crushing season, which lasts about four months. The argument was based on the interpretation of the word "ordinarily" in the context of the Act. The court examined the definition of "factory" under Clause (m) of Section 2 of the Act, which includes premises where manufacturing is "ordinarily carried on." The court held that the word "ordinarily" must be interpreted with reference to the nature of the factories and the intention and purposes of the Act. Factories that operate for a limited period but engage in ancillary activities during the off-season are still considered factories throughout the year. Therefore, the court rejected the contention that Section 49 cannot be applied to sugar factories or other seasonal factories, stating that even factories operating for limited hours daily are considered to be "ordinarily" carrying on manufacturing processes.

2. Validity of Rules 5 to 9 framed under the Factories Act, 1948:

The petitioners argued that Rules 5 to 9 were beyond the scope of Sub-section (2) of Section 49, which allows the Provincial Government to prescribe the duties, qualifications, and conditions of service of officers.

- Rule 6: The court upheld Rule 6, which prescribes three grades of Welfare Officers with different pay scales based on the number of workers employed. The court found that prescribing grades and pay scales falls within the "conditions of service" and is within the rule-making power of the Provincial Government.

- Rules 5, 7, 8, and 9: The court found these rules to be ultra vires. Rule 5 involves the Labour Commissioner inviting applications and maintaining a list of approved candidates. Rules 7, 8, and 9 outline the method of selection and appointment of Welfare Officers. The court held that these rules do not pertain to the duties, qualifications, or conditions of service but rather to the method of recruitment and appointment, which is beyond the scope of Sub-section (2) of Section 49. The argument that these rules should be considered as prescribing "qualifications" was rejected. The court stated that qualifications refer to academic and professional credentials, not the inclusion in a list maintained by the Labour Commissioner.

The court also considered Section 112 of the Factories Act, which allows the Provincial Government to make rules to give effect to the purposes of the Act. However, the court noted that the notification promulgating these rules did not mention Section 112, indicating no conscious exercise of mind by the rule-making authority to deem the rules expedient for the purposes of the Act. Therefore, Section 112 could not validate the rules.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petitions concerning Rule 6 but allowed them regarding Rules 5, 7, 8, and 9. A writ of mandamus was issued to restrain the enforcement of Rules 5, 7, 8, and 9. The petitioners were awarded costs of Rs. 200 in each application.

---