Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 1996 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1996 (9) TMI 503 - SC - Companies LawWhether in the case of a company which owns or runs the factory, it is only a director of the company who can be notified as the occupier of the factory within the meaning of proviso (ii) to section 2(n) of the Act, or whether the company can nominate any other employee to be the occupier by passing a resolution to the effect that the said employee shall have "ultimate control over the affairs of the factory? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In the case of a company, which owns a factory, it is only one of the directors of the company who can be notified as the occupier of the factory for the purposes of the Act and the company cannot nominate any other employee to be the occupier of the factory. Where the company fails to nominate one of its directors as the occupier of the factory, the Inspector of Factories shall be at liberty to proceed against any one of the directors of the company, treating him as the deemed occupier of the factory, for prosecution and punishment in case of any breach or contravention of the provisions of the Act or for offences committed under the Act. Proviso (ii) to section 2(n) of the Act is intra vires the substantive provision of section 2(n) of the Act.Proviso (ii) to section 2(n) is constitutionally valid and is not ultra vires articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The law laid down by the High Courts of Bombay, Orissa, Karnataka, Calcutta, Gauhati and Madras is not the correct law and the contrary view expressed by the High Courts of Allahabad, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Patna is the correct enunciation of law in regard to the ambit and scope of proviso (ii) to section 2(n) of the Act.
|