Skip to main content

Inspectors under The Factories Act,1948

 Inspectors-

Section 8 of the Factories Act,1948 provides the provision for Inspectors. According to this section the State Government has the power to appoint an Inspector by notification in the official gazette for the purposes of the Factories Act. 

According to Sub-section of Section 8, the State Government may appoint any person as Chief Inspector by publishing it in the official gazette. The Chief Inspector along with its power can exercise the power of an Inspector throughout the State.

To assist the Chief Inspector the State Government can appoint other officers and as many Additional Chief Inspectors, Joint Chief Inspectors, and Deputy Chief Inspectors it thinks fit under sub-section (2-A).

According to sub-section (2-B) the Additional Chief Inspector, Joint Chief Inspectors, Deputy Chief Inspector, and other officers appointed under 2-A can exercise the powers of an Inspector along with their powers throughout the State.

But what are the various disqualification for an appointment? Section8(3) provides that if any person has an interest in a factory or business carried on by the factory or with machinery associated with it cannot be appointed as an Inspector and if appointed then he shall not hold office.

Section 8(4) gives power to every Executive District Magistrate to an Inspector for his district.

Powers of Inspectors-

Section 9 of the Factories Act,1948 enumerates the powers of Inspectors within the local limits-

  • The Inspector may enter any place of the factory or where he believes that the place is used as a factory under the definition of the factory. He may be accompanied by his assistants, any local or any public authority, or with experts as he thinks fit.

  • The Inspector has the power to examine the premises, plant, machinery, article, or any other substance.

  • The Inspector can take statements of any person which he thinks necessary while inquiring into any accident or dangerous occurrence whether resulting in bodily injury, disability, or not.

  • The Inspector has the power to order for production of any register or any documents relating to the factory.

  • If the Inspector has a reason to believe that an offense has been committed then he can seize or make copies of any register, record, or other document or any portion thereof.

  • The Inspector can direct the Occupier of the factory to not disturb any area, premises, or any part thereof for necessary inspection.

  • The Inspector can take measurements, photographs or can make such recordings as he considers necessary for examining. The Inspector can take any instrument or equipment to assist him in the process of examination.

  • If the Inspector has a reason to believe that any article or substance in any premise can cause danger to the health or safety of the workers then the Inspector can direct it to be dismantled or can take possession of any such article or substance or a part thereof and also can detain it for necessary examination.

  • The Inspector can exercise other powers as may be prescribed.

In the case of D.C & G. Mills Co. V. Chief Commr. Delhi, it was held that the Inspectors must not only enjoy the powers and duties but also have a moral obligation and are expected to give proper advice and guidance to the factories.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more