# The State of Goa & Anr v. Namita Tripathi

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 306
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-03-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 2025
- **Bench:** B.R. Gavai, K.V. Viswanathan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-state-of-goa-anr-v-namita-tripathi-38854
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) had issued process to
the respondent pursuant to the complaint filed by the appellants
alleging violation by the respondent of the provisions of the
Factories Act, 1948 and thereby committing offences punishable
u/s.92 thereof. However, the High Court had quashed the said
order of the JMFC. Was the High Court justified in quashing the
process issued.
Headnotes†
Factories Act, 1948 - ss.2(k), 2(m), 92 - Goa Factories Rules,
1985 - rr.3,4,6 - An inspection was conducted in the premises
of the respondent wherein the business of Professional
Laundry Service was carried on, it was found that the
respondent did not possess factory approved plans - Further,
the premises were being used as a factory without obtaining
a valid factory licence - A complaint was filed - The JMFC
issued summons to respondents - However, the High Court
by the impugned order quashed the order issuing process -
Correctness:
Held: There is no doubt that the business of laundry carried
on by the respondent involved cleaning and washing of clothes
including dry cleaning - Admittedly, more than 9 workers were
employed in the centralized processing unit and also used the
aid of power - The Act of 1948 defines "manufacturing process"
and clearly "washing, cleaning" and the activities carried out by
the respondent with a view to its use, delivery or disposal are
squarely attracted - The contention of the respondent that dry
* Author
342
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
cleaning does not make any product usable, saleable or worthy
of transport, delivery or disposal is rejected - "Manufacturing
process" has been defined to mean any process for washing
or cleaning with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or
disposal - The linen deposited with the launderer is, after washing
and cleaning, delivered to the customer for use - The ingredients
of the section are fully satisfied - There is nothing in the Act of
1948, which is repugnant in the subject or context, constraining
to jettison the definition - Hence, this Court rejects the findings
of the High Court and hold that the activity carried out which
on facts is not disputed is clearly covered by the definition of
"manufacturing process" u/s.2(k) which, in turn, would bring the
premises in question of the respondent under the definition of
"factory" u/s.2(m) - If that were so, the complaint lodged against
the respondent could not have been quashed - The consequence
would be that the complaint filed by the appellants along with
the order issuing process of 04.12.2019 would stand restored.
[Paras 33, 42, 49]
Factories Act, 1948 - ss.2(k), 2(m) - Statutory definitions -
discussed. [Paras 15- 17]
Factories Act, 1948 - Object and reasons - discussed.
[Paras 18-20]

## Text

_Characters 0–39,993 of 53,297. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39993 for what follows._

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 341 : 2025 INSC 306
The State of Goa & Anr.
v.
Namita Tripathi
(Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 2025)
03 March 2025
[B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) had issued process to
the respondent pursuant to the complaint filed by the appellants
alleging violation by the respondent of the provisions of the
Factories Act, 1948 and thereby committing offences punishable
u/s.92 thereof. However, the High Court had quashed the said
order of the JMFC. Was the High Court justified in quashing the
process issued.
Headnotes†
Factories Act, 1948 - ss.2(k), 2(m), 92 - Goa Factories Rules,
1985 - rr.3,4,6 - An inspection was conducted in the premises
of the respondent wherein the business of Professional
Laundry Service was carried on, it was found that the
respondent did not possess factory approved plans - Further,
the premises were being used as a factory without obtaining
a valid factory licence - A complaint was filed - The JMFC
issued summons to respondents - However, the High Court
by the impugned order quashed the order issuing process -
Correctness:
Held: There is no doubt that the business of laundry carried
on by the respondent involved cleaning and washing of clothes
including dry cleaning - Admittedly, more than 9 workers were
employed in the centralized processing unit and also used the
aid of power - The Act of 1948 defines "manufacturing process"
and clearly "washing, cleaning" and the activities carried out by
the respondent with a view to its use, delivery or disposal are
squarely attracted - The contention of the respondent that dry
* Author
342
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
cleaning does not make any product usable, saleable or worthy
of transport, delivery or disposal is rejected - "Manufacturing
process" has been defined to mean any process for washing
or cleaning with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or
disposal - The linen deposited with the launderer is, after washing
and cleaning, delivered to the customer for use - The ingredients
of the section are fully satisfied - There is nothing in the Act of
1948, which is repugnant in the subject or context, constraining
to jettison the definition - Hence, this Court rejects the findings
of the High Court and hold that the activity carried out which
on facts is not disputed is clearly covered by the definition of
"manufacturing process" u/s.2(k) which, in turn, would bring the
premises in question of the respondent under the definition of
"factory" u/s.2(m) - If that were so, the complaint lodged against
the respondent could not have been quashed - The consequence
would be that the complaint filed by the appellants along with
the order issuing process of 04.12.2019 would stand restored.
[Paras 33, 42, 49]
Factories Act, 1948 - ss.2(k), 2(m) - Statutory definitions -
discussed. [Paras 15- 17]
Factories Act, 1948 - Object and reasons - discussed.
[Paras 18-20]
Case Law Cited
Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr. v. Air India Ltd. & Ors. [2014] 14 SCR
1512 : (2014) 9 SCC 407; S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
[2001] Supp. 2 SCR 140 : (2001) 7 SCC 659; Works Manager,
Central Railway Workshop, Jhansi v. Vishwanath & Ors. [1970] 2
SCR 726 : (1969) 3 SCC 95; Allahabad Bank & Anr. v. All India
Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association [2010] 2 SCR
162 : (2010) 2 SCC 44; Lanco Anpara Power Ltd. v. State of U.P.
& Ors. [2016] 5 SCR 731 : (2016) 10 SCC 329; Jeewanlal Ltd.
& Ors. v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act
& Ors. [1985] 1 SCR 664 : (1984) 4 SCC 356; Steel Authority
of India Ltd. & Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors.
[2001] Supp. 2 SCR 343 : (2001) 7 SCC 1 - relied on.
Crane Betel Nut Powder Works v. Commr. of Customs & Central
Excise, Tirupathi & Anr. [2007] 4 SCR 109 : (2007) 4 SCC 155;
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
343
The State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi
Kores India Ltd., Chennai v. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chennai [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 320 : (2005) 1 SCC 385; Independent
Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors., 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 181; Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Triplex
Dry Cleaners and Others (1998) 1 SCC 196; J.P. Lights India v.
Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation, Bangalore, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1271 - referred to.
Super Cleaners v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2006
SCC OnLine Bom 1660; Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
Jullundur v. Triplex Dry Cleaners and Others (1982) ILR 2P&H
291 - referred to.
List of Acts
Factories Act, 1948; Goa Factories Rules, 1985; Shops And
Establishments Act; Employees State Insurance Act; Factories
Act of 1934; Central Excise Act of 1944.
List of Keywords
Laundry business; Cleaning and washing of clothes; Dry cleaning;
Factory; Manufacturing process; Use of premises without factory
license; Employees State Insurance Corporation; Summons;
Quashing the process issued; Welfare statute; Beneficial legislation;
Rule of Plain meaning; Mischief rule.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1060 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2021 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Goa in SNM No. 944 of 2020
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Shishir Deshpande, Ms. Pooja Tripathi,
Ms. Harshita Sharma, Amit Kumar, Abhishek Verma.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Shivan Desai, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Ms. Maria Viegas, Ms. Tahira
Manezes, Ms. Riya Amonkar, Narender Kumar Verma.
344
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1.
Leave granted.
2.
The present Appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment
dated 06.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in
Stamp Number Main No. 944 of 2020 (F). By the said judgment,
the High Court allowed the prayer of the respondent herein and
quashed the order dated 04.12.2019 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) at Panaji in Criminal Case
No. LC/19/2019/C. By the said order, the Ld. JMFC had issued
process to the respondent pursuant to the complaint filed by the
appellants alleging violation by the respondent of the provisions
of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of
1948') and thereby committing offences punishable under Section
92 thereof.
FACTS:-
3.
The facts lie in a narrow compass. Pursuant to the inspection
conducted on 20.05.2019 in the premises of the respondent wherein
the business of Professional Laundry Service was carried on, it was
found that the respondent did not possess factory approved plans as
required under Rule 3 of the Goa Factories Rules, 1985 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Rules') read with Section 6 of the Act of 1948; that
the premises were being used as a factory without obtaining a valid
factory licence in violation of Rule 4 of the Rules read with Section 6
of the Act of 1948 and that the respondent had not submitted any
application for registration and grant of licence in violation of Rule 6
of the Rules read with Section 6 of the Act of 1948. An inspection
report was drawn up and the same was furnished by a covering
letter dated 24.05.2019 with the "occupier of the respondent" to
report compliance within 15 days.
4.
The inspection report set out that at the time of inspection there
were more than 9 workers employed; that there was no muster roll
maintained for the month of May 2019; and that the manufacturing
process of cleaning and washing of clothes was carried on. The
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
345
The State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi
report set out the details of the machinery/equipments and the total
installed power and set out that the premises amounted to a factory
within the purview of Section 2(m)(i) of the Act of 1948 and also
observed about the violation, as set out hereinabove, with regard
to the absence of registration and licence for use of the premises
as factory. The occupier was advised to submit an application for
due compliance of the Act failing which they were warned that it will
constitute criminal offence punishable under the Act of 1948.
5.
The complaint alleged that by the letter of 30.05.2019 signed by the
authorized signatory of the respondent a reply was furnished, setting
out that the respondent who operated under the name and style of
"White Cloud" is a professionally set up laundry comprising of six
collection centres around Goa and one central processing unit; that
it had 58 employees in the collection centres including 10 workers
at the central processing unit; that a similar inspection had been
carried out in October 2005 and no further action was taken; that
under the Act of 1948, washing and dry cleaning would not constitute
"manufacturing process"; that "laundry business" is a service and
not a manufacturing activity since the "product" of the business is
intangible; that what is rendered is a service and that they are duly
registered under the Shops And Establishments Act.
6.
The letter also annexed certain judgments to contend that the activity
did not constitute the "manufacturing process". It was contended
that in view of the above there is no contravention of any of the
legal provisions.
7.
It transpires that pursuant to the request of 17.06.2019 by the
respondent, a personal hearing was also afforded to them and a
hearing was indeed given by Shri Vivek Marathe, Chief Inspector,
Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers. The complaint further averred
that after further correspondence with the respondent since their reply
was unsatisfactory, the complainant wrote and obtained information
from the Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation
(ESIC) that the respondent unit was indeed covered under Section
2(12) of the Employees State Insurance Act (hereinafter referred to
as the 'ESIC Act') and have ESIC code no. 32000025050000909
assigned to them. The complaint concluded by stating that since
no satisfactory reply was forthcoming the respondent was liable for
offences punishable under Section 92 of the Act of 1948.
346
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
8.
On 04.12.2019, the JMFC Panaji issued summons by recording the
following :-
"Criminal Case No. LC/19/2019/C
Perused.
The material on record makes out a prima facie case
against the accused. Hence, issue process."
9.
Aggrieved, the respondent herein moved the High Court of Bombay
at Goa seeking to quash and set aside the summons as well as the
complaint, primarily on two grounds alleged namely, that the order
issuing summons is unreasoned and suffers grave errors of facts and
law and it does not reflect application of mind; and that the process
of "Dry cleaning of clothes" does not constitute "manufacturing
process" as defined under the Act of 1948. It was also averred that
business of laundry is in the nature of service and the premises are
not manufacturing unit for the purpose of the Act of 1948.
10. By the impugned order, the High Court has quashed the order issuing
process after holding that a perusal of the order issuing process,
did not reflect any application of mind, and further relying on certain
precedents, held as under:-
"22. In view of this position, the definition of manufacturing
process would show that the washing and cleaning has
to be with a view to its use, sale, transport delivery or
disposal. Whenever any washing or cleaning is done of
any article or substance with a view to its use, that is,
of use in such a way that a new marketable commodity
would come into being known commercially for being
used as such or for selling the same and so on, then
the process would certainly come within the definition of
manufacturing process. To constitute or manufacture there
must be a transformation. Mere labour bestowed on an
article even if the labour is applied through machinery, will
not make it a manufacture, unless it has progressed so
far that transformation ensues and the article becomes
commercially known as another and different article from
that as which it begins its existence. Once it is confirmed
that dry cleaning is not within the definition of manufacturing
process, Factories Act will not apply."
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
347
The State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi
11. Aggrieved, the appellants are before us in Appeal.
12. We have heard Ms. Ruchira Gupta, learned Advocate for the
appellants and Mr. Shivan Desai, learned counsel for the respondent.
We have also perused the records including the written submissions
filed by the parties.
13. In the above factual background, the question that arises for
consideration is, was the High Court justified in quashing the process
issued?
ANALYSIS:-
14. The averments in the complaint allege that the respondent has violated
the provisions of the Act of 1948 inasmuch as being a factory they
have not complied with the provisions of the Act of 1948 on matters
set out hereinabove. This position is disputed by the respondent on
the ground that their premises do not constitute a factory as defined
in the Act of 1948. To answer this question, an examination of the
scheme of the Act of 1948 with particular focus on the definition of
"factory" under Section 2(m) as well as the definition of "manufacturing
process" under Section 2(k) is essential.
STATUTORY DEFINITION:-
15. Sections 2(m) and 2(k) of the Act of 1948 read as under.-
"2. Interpretation.-In this Act, unless there is anything
repugnant in the subject or context,-
(m) "factory" means any premises including the precincts
thereof-
(i) 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, or
(ii) whereon twenty 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 without
the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on,-
348
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
but does not include a mine subject to the
operation of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952)
or a mobile unit belonging to the armed forces
of the Union, a railway running shed or a hotel,
restaurant or eating place;
(k) "manufacturing process" means any process for-
(i) making, altering, repairing, ornamenting,
finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning,
breaking up, demolishing, or otherwise treating
or adapting any article or substance with a view
to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal; or
(ii) pumping oil, water, sewage or any other
substance; or
(iii) generating, transforming or transmitting
power; or
(iv) composing types for printing, printing by
letter press, lithography, photogravure or
other similar process or book binding; or
(v) constructing, reconstructing, repairing,
refitting, finishing or breaking up ships or
vessels; or
(vi) preserving or storing any article in cold
storage;"
(Emphasis supplied)
16. A perusal of the definition of "factory" in the Act of 1948 would
reveal that any premises including the precincts thereof where ten or
more workers are working and in any part of which a manufacturing
process is being carried on with the aid of power would be covered
therein. The Act of 1948 defines "manufacturing process" to mean
any process for making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing,
packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing, or
otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view
to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal.
17. On a plain reading, it is clear that any process involving washing
or cleaning any article or substance with a view to its use, sale,
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
349
The State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi
transport, delivery or disposal would be covered within the meaning of
manufacturing process. The High Court has, on this issue, after relying
on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Employees'
State Insurance Corporation, Jullundur Vs. Triplex Dry Cleaners
and Others, (1982) ILR 2P&H 291 gone on to conclude that the
use has to be in such a way that a new marketable commodity
should come into being and it should be known commercially for
being used as such or for selling the same. According to the High
Court, only if these ingredients are fulfilled would the definition of
manufacturing process be attracted. The High Court has further held
that mere labour bestowed on an article even if the labour is applied
through machinery will not make it a manufacturing process unless it
has progressed so far, that a transformation ensues and the article
becomes commercially known as another and different article from
that as which it begins its existence.
OBJECT AND REASONS OF THE ACT OF 1948:-
18. To appreciate the correctness of this finding, we need to examine the
object and purpose of the Act of 1948. The Act of 1948 was enacted
to regulate the labour employed in the factories. Originally, the Act
that was in vogue was the Factories Act of 1934. However, as the
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 1948 indicates the
experience of working of the 1934 Act revealed the number of defects
and weaknesses. One of the reasons for enactment of the Act of
1948 was to reinforce the provisions with regard to safety, welfare and
health of the workers. It was expressly noticed in the Statement of
Objects and Reasons that under the 1934 Act, several undertakings
were excluded from its scope and it was felt that provisions relating
to health, working hours, holidays, lighting and ventilation ought to
be extended to all workplaces in view of the unsatisfactory state of
affairs as was then prevailing in unregulated factories.
19. The defects in the 1934 Act were sought to be remedied by laying
down clearly in the Bill itself the minimum requirements regarding
health (cleanliness, ventilation and temperature, dangerous dust
and fumes, lighting and control of glare, etc.) safety (eye protection,
control of explosive and inflammable dusts, etc.) and general welfare
of workers (washing facilities, first-aid, canteens, shelter rooms,
creches, etc.). The Act provided formulation of Rules by the State
Government to the effect that every factory should be registered
350
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and should take license for working, which is to be renewed at
periodic intervals; approval of plans, designs and specifications of
the proposed construction of factory and so on. The Act of 1948 was
further amended in 1976 to strengthen the provisions with regard to
the safety measures to promote the health and welfare of the workers
employed in factories. A further amendment was made in 1987 for
dealing with safeguards to be adopted against use and handling of
hazardous substances by the occupiers of factories and the laying
down of emergency standards and measures.
20. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 1948 along
with the amendments are extracted hereinbelow:-
"Statement of Objects and Reasons.- The existing
law relating to the regulation of labour employed
in factories in India is embodied in the Factories
Act, 1934. Experience of the working of the Act has
revealed a number of defects and weaknesses which
hamper effective administration. Although the Act has
been amended in certain respects in a piecemeal fashion
whenever some particular aspect of labour safety or welfare
assumed urgent importance, the general framework has
remained unchanged. The provisions for the safety, health
and welfare of workers are generally found to be inadequate
and unsatisfactory and even such protection as is provided
does not extend to the large mass of workers employed in
work places not covered by the Act. In view of the large
and growing industrial activities in the country, a radical
overhauling of the Factories law is essentially called for
and cannot be delayed.
The proposed legislation differs materially from the existing
law in several respects. Some of the important features
are herein mentioned. Under the definition of "Factory"
in the Act of 1934, several undertakings are excluded
from its scope but it is essential that important basic
provisions relating to health, working hours, holidays
lighting and ventilation, should be extended to all
workplaces in view of the unsatisfactory state of
affairs now prevailing in unregulated factories. Further,
the present distinction between seasonal and perennial
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
351
The State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi
factories which has little justification has been done away
with. The minimum age of employment for children has
been raised from 12 to 13 and their working hours reduced
from 5 to 41⁄2 with powers to Provincial Governments to
prescribe even a higher minimum age for employment in
hazardous undertakings.
The present Act is very general in character and leaves
too much to the rule making powers of the Provincial
Governments. While some of them do have rules of
varying stringency, the position on the whole is not
quite satisfactory. This defect is sought to be remedied
by laying down clearly in the Bill itself the minimum
requirements regarding health (cleanliness, ventilation
and temperature, dangerous dusts and fumes, lighting
and control of glare, etc.) safety (eye protection, control
of explosive and inflammable dusts. etc.), and general
welfare of workers (washing facilities, first-aid, canteens,
shelter rooms, creches, etc.) amplified where necessary,
by rules and regulations to be prescribed by Provincial
Governments.
Further, the present Act leaves important and complex points
to the discretion of inspectors placing heavy responsibility
on them. In view of the specialised, and hazardous nature
of the processes employed in the factories it is too much
to expect Inspectors to possess an expert knowledge of
all these matters. The detailed provisions contained in the
Bill will go a long way in lightening their burden.
Some difficulties experienced in the administration of the
Act, especially relating to hours of employment, holidays
with pay, etc., have been met by making the provisions
more definite and clearer. The penalty clauses have also
been simplified. An important provision has also been made
in the Bill empowering Provincial Governments to require
that every factory should be registered and should take a
license for working to be renewed at periodical intervals.
Provincial Governments are further being empowered to
require that before a new factory is constructed or any
extensions are made to an existing one, the plans designs
352
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and specifications of the proposed construction should
receive their prior approval.
It is expected that the Bill, when enacted into law, will
considerably advance the condition of workers in factories.
The substantial changes made in the existing law are also
indicated in the Notes on Clauses [omitted] Opportunity
has also been taken to arrange the existing law and to
revise expressions, where necessary.
Statement of Objects and Reasons of Amending Act
94 of 1976.- The main object of the Factories Act, 1948 is
to ensure adequate safety measures and to promote the
health and welfare of the workers employed in factories,
Government are, therefore, initiating various measures
from time to time to ensure that adequate standards of
safety, health and welfare are achieved at all work places.
In particular, in the context of the need to secure maximum
production and productivity an appropriate work culture
conducive to safety, health and happiness of workers has
to be evolved in the factories.
To achieve these objectives more effectively it has become
necessary to amend the Factories Act. The amendments
proposed to be made in the Act by the Bill mainly relate to
(1) the modification of the definition of the term "worker", so
as to include within its meaning contract labour employed
in any manufacturing process, (2) improvement of the
provisions in regard to safety and appointment of safety
officers, (3) reduction of the minimum number of women
employees, for the purpose of providing creches by
employers, from fifty to thirty and (4) provisions for inquiry
in every case of a fatal accident.
Statement of Objects and Reasons of Amending Act
20 of 1987.-The Factories Act, 1948 provides for the
health, safety, welfare and other aspects of workers in
factories. The Act is enforced by the State Governments
through their Factory Inspectorates. The Act also empowers
the State Governments to frame rules, so that the local
conditions prevailing in the State are appropriately reflected
in the enforcement. The Act was last amended in 1976
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
353
The State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi
for strengthening the provisions relating to safety and
health at work, extending the scope of the definition of
"workers", providing for statutory health surveys, and
requiring appointment of safety officers in large factories.
2. After the last amendment to the Act, there has been
substantial modernisation and innovation in the industrial
field. Several chemical industries have come up which deal
with hazardous and toxic substances. This has brought
in its train problems of industrial safety and occupational
health hazards. It is, therefore, considered necessary
that the Act may be appropriately amended, among other
things, to provide specially for the safeguards to be adopted
against use and handling of hazardous substances by the
occupiers of factories and the laying down of emergency
standards and measures. The amendments would also
include procedures for sitting of hazardous industries to
ensure that hazardous and polluting industries are not
set up in areas where they can cause adverse effects on
the general public. Provision has also been made for the
workers' participation in safety management.
3. Opportunity has been availed of to make the punishments
provided in the Act stricter and certain other amendments
found necessary in the implementation of the Act
4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects."
(Emphasis supplied)
THE ACT OF 1948:-
A STATUTE TO AMELIORATE THE CONDITIONS OF WORKMEN
21. This Court dealing with the legislative intent of the Act of 1948 in
Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr. v. Air India Ltd. & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC
407 held as under:-
"28. The 1948 Act is a social legislation and it provides
for the health, safety, welfare, working hours, leave
and other benefits for workers employed in factories
and it also provides for the improvement of working
conditions within the factory premises. Section 2 of the
1948 Act is the interpretation clause. Apart from others,
354
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
it provides the definition of "worker" under Section 2(l)
of the 1948 Act, to mean a person employed, directly or
through any other agency, whether for wages or not, in
any manufacturing or cleaning process."
(Emphasis supplied)
22. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2001) 7 SCC 659, this
Court held as under:-
"19. ... The Factories Act, 1948 cannot but be ascribed
to be a beneficial piece of legislation and the requirement
of Section 61, in particular, sub-sections (1) and (2) of
Section 61 can be easily deciphered since the intent stands
clear enough to indicate that an adult worker must know
his daily placement and daily workings beforehand - this
placement beforehand is the requirement of the statute in
Section 63 and in the event of non-compliance, there is
a liability for being prosecuted. We have in the complaint
a statement that Form 14 does not stand completed. We
have also in the complaint the number of working hours
on a day but the requirement of Form 14, the Inspector
alleges does not stand fulfilled. It is too early at this stage,
however, to contend that the aforesaid statement does not
stand to reason and the complaint needs to be quashed
at this stage of the proceeding."
(Emphasis supplied)
SOME RELEVANT PROVISIONS FROM THE ACT OF 1948:-
23. A bare perusal of the Act of 1948 would also reveal that Section
6 provided for the approval, licensing and registration of factories
in accordance with the Rules made by the State Government, the
obligation of the occupier to issue notice was provided under Section
7; the prescription of general duties of the occupier was provided
under Section 7A; the general duties of manufacturers were provided
under Section 7B; the provisions for appointment of inspectors were
made under Section 8 and their powers specified in Section 9.
24. Chapter III of the Act of 1948 deals with health and obliges the
factories premises to be kept clean (Section 11), disposal of wastes
and effluents (Section 12), ventilation and temperature (Section 13),
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
355
The State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi
regulation of dust and fume (Section 14), artificial humidification
(Section 15), regulations of overcrowding in rooms (Section 16),
provision for lighting (Section 17), provision for drinking water (Section
18) and provision for latrines and urinals (Section 19).
25. Chapter IV deals with safety aspects, namely, fencing of machinery
(Section 21), regulation of work on or near machinery in motion
(Section 22), provision with regard to employment of young persons
on dangerous machines (Section 23) and so on. Apart from other
salient features in Chapter IV, precautions in case of fire (Section
38), safety of buildings and machinery (Section 40), maintenance of
buildings Section 40A are provided for. An exclusive Chapter IV-A
deals with provisions relating to hazardous processes.
26. Chapter V deals with welfare measures for workers; Chapter VI deals
with working hours of adults and provides for weekly hours (Section
51), weekly holidays (Section 52), daily hours (Section 54) and night
shifts (Section 57), extra wages for overtime (Section 59) and so
on. In the same Chapter, Section 62 provides for maintenance of
register of adult workers.
27. Chapter VII deals with the employment of young persons; Section 67
proscribes employment of any child under the age of 14 years from
working in a factory; Section 71 provides working hours for children
above the age of 14 years and Section 73 provides for maintaining
a register of child workers. Chapter VIII deals with annual leave
with wages. Thereafter, in Chapter X dealing with penalties and
procedure, general penalty for offences is provided in Section 92,
which reads as under:-
"92. General penalty for offences.- Save as is otherwise
expressly provided in this Act and subject to the provisions
of Section 93, if in, or in respect of, any factory there is
any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or
of any rules made thereunder or of any order in writing
given thereunder, the occupier and manager of the factory
shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or
with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both,
and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with
a further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees
for each day on which the contravention is so continued:
356
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Provided that where contravention of any of the provisions
of Chapter IV or any rule made thereunder or under
Section 87 has resulted in an accident causing death or
serious bodily injury, the fine shall not be less than twentyfive thousand rupees in the case of an accident causing
death, and five thousand rupees in the case of an accident
causing serious bodily injury."
28. Section 93 deals with liability of owner of premises in certain
circumstances provided therein. Section 105 provides for cognizance
of offences and states that no Court shall take cognizance of any
offence except on complaint by, or with the previous sanction in
writing of, an inspector and Section 105(2) provides that no Court
below that of a Presidency Magistrate or of a Magistrate of the first
class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.
29. The above conspectus of the legal provisions, discussed
hereinabove, clearly demonstrate that the Act of 1948 is a welfare
statute aimed at ameliorating the conditions of the workmen
employed in factories. It is a beneficial legislation intended to
protect workers from occupational hazards by seeking to impose
upon owners and occupiers certain obligations for protecting the
workers and securing their employment in conditions conducive to
their health and safety.
APPLICABLE RULES OF INTERPRETATION: -
30. Acts of this nature which are social welfare legislation and intended
to benefit the large community of workers ought to be interpreted in a
manner to give efficacy to legislative intent. This approach has been
adopted in catena of judgments by this Court. This Court in Works
Manager, Central Railway Workshop, Jhansi v. Vishwanath &
Ors., (1969) 3 SCC 95 held as under:-
"11. The Factories Act was enacted to consolidate
and amend the law regulating labour in factories. It is
probably true that all legislation in a welfare State is
enacted with the object of promoting general welfare;
but certain types of enactments are more responsive
to some urgent social demands and also have more
immediate and visible impact on social vices by
operating more directly to achieve social reforms The
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
357
The State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi
enactments with which we are concerned, in our view,
belong to this category and, therefore, demand an
interpretation liberal enough to achieve the legislative
purpose, without doing violence to the language.
The definition of "worker" in the Factories Act, therefore,
does not seem to us to exclude those employees who
are entrusted solely with clerical duties, if they otherwise
fall within the definition of the word "worker". Keeping in
view the duties and functions of the respondents as found
by the learned Additional District Judge, we are unable
to find anything legally wrong with the view taken by the
High Court that they fall within the definition of the word
"worker". Deletion of the word "whatsoever" on which the
appellant's counsel has placed reliance does not seem
to make much difference because that word was, in our
view, redundant."
(Emphasis supplied)
31. This Court in Allahabad Bank & Anr. v. All India Allahabad Bank
Retired Employees Association, (2010) 2 SCC 44 held as under:-
"16. We shall proceed to examine the point urged
by the learned counsel for the appellant. Remedial
statutes, in contradistinction to penal statutes, are
known as welfare, beneficent or social justice oriented
legislations. Such welfare statutes always receive
a liberal construction. They are required to be so
construed so as to secure the relief contemplated by
the statute. It is well settled and needs no restatement
at our hands that labour and welfare legislation have
to be broadly and liberally construed having due
regard to the directive principles of State policy. The
Act with which we are concerned for the present is
undoubtedly one such welfare oriented legislation
meant to confer certain benefits upon the employees
working in various establishments in the country."
(Emphasis supplied)
32. In Lanco Anpara Power Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2016) 10
SCC 329, this Court held as under:-
358
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
"44. The sentiments were echoed in Bombay Anand
Bhavan Restaurant v. ESI Corpn., (2009) 9 SCC 61, in
the following words: (SCC p. 66, para 20)
"20. The Employees' State Insurance Act is
a beneficial legislation. The main purpose of
the enactment as the Preamble suggests, is
to provide for certain benefits to employees
of a factory in case of sickness, maternity and
employment injury and to make provision for
certain other matters in relation thereto. The
Employees' State Insurance Act is a social
security legislation and the canons of interpreting
a social legislation are different from the canons
of interpretation of taxation law. The courts must
not countenance any subterfuge which would
defeat the provisions of social legislation and
the courts must even, if necessary, strain the
language of the Act in order to achieve the
purpose which the legislature had in placing
this legislation on the statute book. The Act,
therefore, must receive a liberal construction
so as to promote its objects."
RULE OF 'PLAIN MEANING':-
33. Reverting to the statutory provisions, it is clear on a plain reading
of Section 2(k) of the Act of 1948 that 'washing or cleaning' of any
article or substance with a view to its delivery is clearly covered
by the phrase "manufacturing process". Where the words of
statute are clear, the plain meaning has to be given effect. We
have no doubt in our mind that the business of laundry carried
on by the respondent involving cleaning and washing of clothes
including dry cleaning would be squarely covered by the expression
"manufacturing process". Admittedly, they employed more than 9
workers in the centralized processing unit and also used the aid
of power.
34. The plain meaning rule was explained by this Court in Jeewanlal
Ltd. & Ors. v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity
Act & Ors., (1984) 4 SCC 356, which reads as under:-
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
359
The State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi
"11. In construing a social welfare legislation, the court
should adopt a beneficent rule of construction; and if a
section is capable of two constructions, that construction
should be preferred which fulfils the policy of the Act, and
is more beneficial to the persons in whose interest the
Act has been passed. When, however, the language is
plain and unambiguous, the Court must give effect
to it whatever may be the consequence, for, in that
case, the words of the statute speak the intention
of the Legislature. When the language is explicit, its
consequences are for the Legislature and not for the
courts to consider. The argument of inconvenience
and hardship is a dangerous one and is only
admissible in construction where the meaning of
the statute is obscure and there are two methods of
construction. In their anxiety to advance beneficent
purpose of legislation, the courts must not yield to the
temptation of seeking ambiguity when there is none."
(Emphasis supplied)
APPLICATION OF THE MISCHIEF RULE:-
35. To reinforce our holding, we may usefully refer to the definition of
"manufacturing process" as was defined in the Factories Act of 1934
under Section 2(g) thereof which reads as follows.
"2(g) "manufacturing process" means any process-
(i)
for making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing
or packing, or otherwise treating any article or
substance with a view to its use, sale, transport,
delivery or disposal, or
(ii)
for pumping oil, water or sewage, or
(iii) for generating, transforming or transmitting power."
36. It is very clear that Section 2(g) of the 1934 Act did not have the
words 'washing, cleaning' and they have been specifically brought in
the Act of 1948 with a clear object of bringing into the fold of the Act
undertakings excluded from the scope of the 1934 Act as discussed
in the Statement of Objects and Reasons set out hereinabove.
360
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
37. Dealing with the mischief rule, this Court in Steel Authority of India
Ltd. & Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors., (2001)
7 SCC 1 held as under:-
"66. For a proper examination of these issues, a reference
to Section 10 which provides for prohibition of employment
of contract labour and clauses (b), (c), (e), (g) and (i)
of Section 2(1) of the CLRA Act which define the terms
"contract labour", "contractor", "establishment", "principal
employer" and "workman" respectively will be apposite. To
interpret these and other relevant provisions of the CLRA
Act, to which reference will be made presently, we may,
with advantage, refer to Craies on Statute Law [ 6th Edn.,
by S.G.G. Edgar, p.