Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Engaged In Selling And Repairing Electrical Goods Falls In Definition Of “Factory” And “Manufacturing Process”: SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has affirmed the interpretation of the definitions of “Factory” and “manufacturing process” under the Employees State Insurance Act and the Factories Act. The case, which saw M/S J.P.LIGHTS INDIA pitted against The Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation, Bangalore, centered around the classification of the appellant’s business activities under these definitions.

The Bench, comprising of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, delivered the verdict on July 27th, 2023. The appellant, a sole proprietorship firm, challenged the dismissal of its appeal against the order of the Employees State Insurance Court.

The Court’s judgment extensively explored the terms “Factory” and “manufacturing process,” citing Sections 2(12), 2(14AA) of the Employees State Insurance Act, and Section 2(k) of the Factories Act. The Bench clarified the conditions that define a premises as a “Factory” and the scope of a “manufacturing process.”

In the crucial observation, the Court confirmed that the appellant-firm, engaged in selling and repairing electrical goods, using electrical energy, fell within the definition of a “Factory” and was involved in a “manufacturing process” under both statutes. The ruling upheld the impugned judgment, emphasizing its alignment with statutory provisions.

The Court concluded by dismissing the appeal as meritless, with each party bearing its own expenses. This judgment not only solidifies the legal understanding of these definitions but also sheds light on the application of statutory provisions to specific business scenarios.

Date of Decision: 27th July, 2023

M/S J.P.LIGHTS INDIA vs THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR E.S.I. CORPORATION, BANGALORE

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/27-Jul-2023-SC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News