Dear Sir,
Our company had not nominated any of its directors as occupier, the factory inspector found some contravetion of act & rules in factory and therefore filed a complaint against all the six directors of compnay. Is this legal? If not pl. provide some judgment on the matter.
From India, Bharuch
1Our company had not nominated any of its directors as occupier, the factory inspector found some contravetion of act & rules in factory and therefore filed a complaint against all the six directors of compnay. Is this legal? If not pl. provide some judgment on the matter.
From India, Bharuch
Dear
Under The Factories Act, 1948 one of the directors was to be appointed as occupier of the company by the Board of Directors but you have not done your duty & therefore you are held responsible for non compliance under this Act by the Inspector of Factories. Action taken by this inspector can not be held as against the Law.
Regards,
R.N.Khola
(Labour Law & Legal Consultants)
09810405361
From India, Delhi
Under The Factories Act, 1948 one of the directors was to be appointed as occupier of the company by the Board of Directors but you have not done your duty & therefore you are held responsible for non compliance under this Act by the Inspector of Factories. Action taken by this inspector can not be held as against the Law.
Regards,
R.N.Khola
(Labour Law & Legal Consultants)
09810405361
From India, Delhi
It is the prime duty of the director(s) to nominate any one of the director as "OCCUPIER" under the Factories act, if not nominated, there will be 2 penal actions aganist the BOD, that is violation of rules under factories act and if anything happen (like, fatal accident, etc.,) the concerned Inspector of factories can serve a legal notice to all directors.
The action initiated by the inspector factories in your case is correct and within the purview of law.
Dear Singh,
You have to fact it and file your reply to him. Also you have to amend and declate the occupier at the earliest. It is your prime duty. DO IT NOW.
Regards
R.Palaniswamy
From India, Coimbatore
The action initiated by the inspector factories in your case is correct and within the purview of law.
Dear Singh,
You have to fact it and file your reply to him. Also you have to amend and declate the occupier at the earliest. It is your prime duty. DO IT NOW.
Regards
R.Palaniswamy
From India, Coimbatore
There are two important aspects of the Factories Act,1948.
a) Nomination of the Occupier
b) Nomination of the Manager.
We need to be careful in nominating the occupier and manager under this act. It is better to have a resolution passed in the board of Directors meeting that one of the Director can be nominated as Occupier under the Factories Act. Normally he should be a person who will have authority and control over the operations of the particular factory/business.
The Manager could be GM-HR or the Head-HR who is going to be taking care of the day to day operations of the business.
Better late than never. Do reply to the notice issued by the Inspector and comply with the requirements immediately.
a) Nomination of the Occupier
b) Nomination of the Manager.
We need to be careful in nominating the occupier and manager under this act. It is better to have a resolution passed in the board of Directors meeting that one of the Director can be nominated as Occupier under the Factories Act. Normally he should be a person who will have authority and control over the operations of the particular factory/business.
The Manager could be GM-HR or the Head-HR who is going to be taking care of the day to day operations of the business.
Better late than never. Do reply to the notice issued by the Inspector and comply with the requirements immediately.
The legal provisions are crystal clear that only one of the directors can be prosecuted along with the Factory manager (Section 92) It does not admit any other interprepretation. however you can find support from the following case law:
1. Superintendent of Legal affairs, West Bengal v. Madhablal Mehta 1974 (1) LLN 339 (Cal. HC)
2. Gupta S. V. State, 1976 LIC 1431=1976 (32)FJR 350
3. Harikrishna v. State of UP 1960 I LLJ 42 =1959 AIR 794 (All)
1. Superintendent of Legal affairs, West Bengal v. Madhablal Mehta 1974 (1) LLN 339 (Cal. HC)
2. Gupta S. V. State, 1976 LIC 1431=1976 (32)FJR 350
3. Harikrishna v. State of UP 1960 I LLJ 42 =1959 AIR 794 (All)
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Company Profile.ppt
Company Profile Letter - Global Risk Management Services.pdf