1976 LAB. I. C. 538 ::1975 Mad L J (Cri) 696 ::50 F J R 92 ::(1976) 1 Lab L N 383 ::(1976) 1 Kant L J 111 ::ILR (1976) Kant 568

Karnataka High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): M.s. Nesargi , J

(A) Factories Act (1948) , S.103, S.2(1)— Presumption under S. 103 is that person is employed and not that he is 'worker' within S. 2 (1). An employee is not defined in the Act and therefore all 'workers' within S. 2 (I) would be employees while all employees would not be workers and the presumption Under S. 103 is that a person is employed and not that he is a 'worker' in the factory. (B) Criminal P. C. (1898). , S. 342— Factories Act (1948) , S.92— Prosecution of owner under S. 92 - Reply sent by him to Inspector's demand to rectify irregularities not put to him when his statement was recorded under S. 342 - No reliance can be placed on reply. (Para 8) (C) Factories Act (1948) , S.92, S.2(1)— Karnataka Factories Rules (1969) , R.2, R.5— License issued in form No. 3 - Word 'workers' in expression 'employing not more than specified number of workers' in form No. 3 - Meaning - Burden is on, prosecution to prove that more than 20 workers were employed to establish contravention of licence. The word 'workers' in the expression 'employing not more than specified number of workers on any one day during the year' in form No. 3 in which the license is issu....