Case Name: The State of Goa & Anr. vs. Namita Tripathi

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1959 of 2022)

Date: March 3, 2025

Quorum: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

 

The case arose from an inspection that was being conducted on May 20, 2019, at the premises of Namita Tripathi, where a professional laundry service was being operated and conducted. The inspection revealed that there were several violations under the Factories Act, 1948, and the Goa Factories Rules, 1985. The respondent lacked factory-approved plans as mandated by Rule 3 of the Goa Factories Rules read along with the Section 6 of the Factories Act. The premises were being used as a factory without a valid license which was in violation of Rule 4 read with Section 6. No application for registration or grant of a license was submitted, violating Rule 6 read with Section 6. The inspection report also noted that more than nine workers were employed at the facility and that power was used in the cleaning and washing processes. Consequently, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Panaji, had follwed up and issued the summons to the respondent under the Section 92 of the Factories Act for non-compliance of the regulation. The respondent challenged this order in the High Court of Bombay at Goa, arguing that laundry services do not constitute a “manufacturing process” under the Factories Act and that the JMFC’s order lacked reasoning. The High Court quashed the JMFC’s order, prompting the State of Goa to appeal to the Supreme Court..

ISSUES

 

1. Whether activities such as washing and dry cleaning qualify as a “manufacturing process” under Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948.
2. Whether premises used for such services require registration and licensing under the Factories Act and associated rules.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

 

1. The Factories Act, 1948: Section 2(k): Defines “manufacturing process,” including activities like washing and cleaning articles for delivery or disposal.
2. Section 6: It mandates registration and licensing for factories engaging in manufacturing processes.
3. Section 92: Prescribes penalties for non-compliance with provisions of the Act.
4. The Goa Factories Rules, 1985: Rules concerning factory registration, licensing, and compliance requirements.

ARGUMENTS

 

Appellant’s Arguments:

 

1. The activities carried out by the respondent clearly fall under “manufacturing process” as defined in Section 2(k) of the Factories Act because they involve cleaning and washing articles for delivery or disposal using more than nine workers and power.
2. The welfare nature of the Factories Act requires strict compliance to ensure worker safety and proper regulation.
3. The High Court erred in interpreting “manufacturing process” narrowly by relying on definitions from unrelated statutes like the Central Excise Act.

 

Respondent’s Arguments:

 

1. Laundry services are merely service-oriented businesses and do not transform articles into new products; hence, they do not qualify as “manufacturing processes.”
2. The premises are not a factory but a service unit; therefore, registration and licensing requirements under the Factories Act do not apply.
3. The JMFC’s order issuing summons was unreasoned and lacked application of mind.

 

ANALYSIS

 

The Supreme Court focused on whether washing and dry cleaning constitute a “manufacturing process” under Section 2(k) of the Factories Act. The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that a transformation into a new article is necessary for an activity to qualify as manufacturing. Instead, it emphasized that,the statutory definition explicitly includes “washing” and “cleaning” when done with a view to delivery or disposal.
Welfare legislation like the Factories Act must be interpreted broadly to ensure worker safety and compliance with regulatory standards. The High Court erred by extrapolating definitions from unrelated statutes like the Central Excise Act instead of adhering to the plain language of Section 2(k). The Court also highlighted that employing more than nine workers with power usage brings such premises within the ambit of “factory” under the Act.

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Goa and set aside the High Court’s judgment quashing the JMFC’s order. It held that:
2. Activities such as washing and dry cleaning fall squarely within the definition of “manufacturing process” under Section 2(k) of the Factories Act.
3. Premises engaged in such activities with more than nine workers using power are required to comply with registration and licensing provisions under Section 6.
4. The welfare objectives of labor laws cannot be undermined by narrow interpretations or procedural lapses.

 

CONCLUSION

 

This judgment reinforces that welfare legislation like the Factories Act must be interpreted expansively to protect workers’ rights and ensure compliance with safety standards. By ruling that laundry services involving washing and dry cleaning constitute a “manufacturing process,” the Supreme Court has clarified ambiguities in statutory interpretation while upholding regulatory oversight over such businesses. This decision underscores that businesses operating on similar scales must adhere to factory regulations regardless of whether they view themselves as service providers or manufacturers.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer

lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

WRITTEN BY POOJA PARAMESWARAN