In Re: S. Sanjeevaraya Setty

Kailasam, J.—In all the three revisions the same question of law arises and can be dealt with together. In Crl. R. C. No. 1202 of 1961,

when P. W. 1 inspected the premises, he found four persons working at the premises at 9:30 a.m. and during the second shift at 9:45 p.m. the

same day he found different persons working, and during the third shift at 10:15 p.m. he found three other persons working. In the other two

revision petitions also the officer during the same day in the three shifts, found 10 or more persons working. The learned Chief Presidency

Magistrate found that, as it'' has been proved that ten persons were working on the day, the premises kept by the accused should be construed as

a factory u/s 2(m)(i) of the Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this conclusion is erroneous and unsustainable in

law. Section 2(m) of the Factories Act defines the word ""factory"" as follows :

Factory"" means any premises including the precincts thereof - (1) whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the

preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried

on...............

We are not concerned with the second clause of the definition, as it has been admitted that a manufacturing process was being carried on with the

aid of power. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that when ten or more workers are working on any day the premises will be a factory.

There are two clauses to the sub-section. One is where ten or more workers are working and the other is where ten or more workers were

working on any day of the preceding 12 months. Whereas the words ""were working on any day"" are found in the second clause, the first clause

reads merely as ""10 or more workers are working."" In the absence of the words ""on any day"" in the first clause, it cannot be read as, ""ten or more

workers working on any day"". The presence of the comma after the word ""working"" is significant. Therefore, to come under the first clause the

prosecution will have to prove that ""10 or more workers are working"". This can only be done by proving that when the officer was on the premises

10 or more persons were working.

The evidence of the officer in each of the cases is that he saw ten or more persons in all were working during the three shifts. The evidence will

not satisfy the requirement of the first clause of Section 2(m) of the Act that ""ten or more workers are working."" In this view I accept the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and allow the petitions. The convictions and sentences in the three petitions are set aside, the

accused are acquitted and fines if paid will be refunded.