Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Jamshedji Naserwanji Modi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No 475 of 1930
Judge
Reported in(1931)33BOMLR309
AppellantEmperor
RespondentJamshedji Naserwanji Modi
Excerpt:
indian factories act (xii of 1911), section 41(a), 27, 258-- occupier and manager-joint and several liability of--occupier, meaning of.; under section 41 of the indian factories act 1911, the owner of a factory cannot escape liability by showing that he knows nothing about the management of the factory and that he has left the whole conduct of it to a manager.; the term 'occupier' in general means a person who occupies the factory either by himself or his agent, he may be an owner, he may be a lessee or even a mere licensee, but he must have the right to occupy the property and dictate how it is to be managed. - - 500. so that it is perfectly plain from this provision that both the occupier and the manager may be respectively liable......beaumont, c.j.1. in this case the accused is charged with an offence under section 41(a) of the indian factories act (xii of 1911). the allegation is that he is the occupier of the factory in question, the soona printing press, and that he employed a person there for more than eleven hours in a day and more than sixty hours in a week, contrary to the provisions of sections 28 and 27 of the act. the learned presidency magistrate, third court, acquitted him and the government appeal. 2. in his written statement the accused says he is the owner of the press, but that he knows nothing about the management of the press, the whole conduct of which is left to his manager mr. mistry. mr. mistry went into the witness-box and admitted that he was the manager of the press and did everything in.....
Judgment:

J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.

1. In this case the accused is charged with an offence under Section 41(a) of the Indian Factories Act (XII of 1911). The allegation is that he is the occupier of the factory in question, the Soona Printing Press, and that he employed a person there for more than eleven hours in a day and more than sixty hours in a week, contrary to the provisions of Sections 28 and 27 of the Act. The learned Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, acquitted him and the Government appeal.

2. In his written statement the accused says he is the owner of the press, but that he knows nothing about the management of the press, the whole conduct of which is left to his manager Mr. Mistry. Mr. Mistry went into the witness-box and admitted that he was the manager of the press and did everything in connection with the press. The question for our consideration is whether in those circumstances the accused is liable. Section 41 of the Indian Factories Act provides that if in any factory certain offences are committed, which include the offences charged in this case, the occupier and manager shall be jointly and severally liable for a fine which may extend to Rs. 500. So that it is perfectly plain from this provision that both the occupier and the manager may be respectively liable. I do not propose to attempt to do what the legislature refrained from doing, namely, give an exhaustive definition of the word ' occupier' for the purposes of the Act, but I should say that ' occupier ' in general means a parson who occupies the factory either by himself or his agent. He may be an owner, he may be a lessee or even a mere licensee, but ho must, I think, have the right to occupy the property and dictate how it is to be managed. It seems to me clear on the facts in this case that the accused is the occupier of the factory, and that the manager who in fact controls it is a servant of the accused, and in those circumstances, I think, the accused as occupier is liable. It is suggested by Mr. Coyajee on his behalf that he could escape liability under Section 42 of the Indian Factories Act. But, in my opinion, the answer to that is that he has not adopted the procedure pointed out by that section. Therefore, in my opinion, Section 42 does not help him. The order of the lower Court acquitting the accused is set aside, and we convict and sentence the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 50.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //