Whether a professional laundry service, specifically White Cloud,should be classified as a “factory” under the Factories Act, 1948. The core dispute revolves around the definition of “manufacturing process” and whether the laundry’s activities, involving washing and cleaning with the aid of power and employing over ten workers, fall under this definition. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court of Bombay at Goa’s decision, which had quashed the initial summons against White Cloud, by emphasizing a plain and liberal interpretation of the Factories Act, intended as social welfare legislation, and distinguishing it from interpretations used for excise laws. The Court concluded that the laundry’s activities indeed constitute a manufacturing process, thereby classifying it as a factory and making it subject to the Act’s provisions.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 – Factories Act, 1948, Section 2(1)(m), 2(k), 6, 92 – Goa Factories Rules, 1985, Rule 3, 6 – Quashing of complaint – Factory – Manufacturing process – Alleged violation by the respondent of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 punishable u/s 92 of the Act – Held 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 – 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 – 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 – The reasoning of the High Court that a transformation has to ensue and the new article must come into being and that it should be commercially known as another and different article is a totally erroneous finding – High Court has extrapolated the definition of “manufacture” as is in vogue in the Central Excise Act 1944 traceable to the definition of “manufacture” in Section 2(f) in the 1944 Act – The contention of the respondent that dry cleaning does not make any product usable, saleable or worthy of transport, delivery or disposal has only to be stated to be 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 us to jettison the definition – Findings of the High Court liable to be rejected and held that the activity carried out which on facts is not disputed is clearly covered by the definition of “manufacturing process” under Section 2(k) which, in turn, would bring the premises in question of the respondent under the definition of “factory” under Section 2(m) – If that were so, the complaint lodged against the respondent could not have been quashed – Order of the High Court liable to be set aside – The consequence would be that the complaint filed by the appellants along with the order issuing process of 04.12.2019 would stand restored to file of the learned JMFC, Panaji and shall be proceeded with in accordance with law.
(Para 17, 29, 33, 38, 42 and 49)
State Of Goa V. Namita Tripathi
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 306: (DoJ 03-03-2025)
