Case: Delhi Cloth &amp; General Mills Co. Ltd Vs. Chief Commissioner, Delhi &amp; Ors

relating to safety. Section 21 deals with fencing of machinery. Section 22 with work on or near machinery in motion and Section 23 with employment of young persons on dangerous machines. The other sections which may be noticed in this Chapter are Section 27 containing the prohibition of employment of women and children near cotton openers; Section 35 in the matter of protection of eyes, Section 36 dealing with precautions against dangerous fumes, Section 37 relating to explosive or inflammable dust, gas etc., and Section 38 relating to precautions in case of fire. Under Section 39 if it appears to the Inspector that any building or part of a building or any part of the ways, machinery or plant in a factory is in such a condition that it may be dangerous to human life and safety he may serve on the manager of the factory an order in writing requiring him to furnish the particulars for determining whether the building, machinery, plant etc., can be used with safety or to carry out such tests as may be specified and convey the result thereof to the Inspector. Under Section 40 if it appears to the Inspector that any building or part of a building is in such a condition that it is dangerous to human life or safety he can serve an order on the manager of the factory specifying the measures which should be adopted and requiring him to carry out the same before a specified date. Similarly if it appears to him that the use of any building or machinery or plant involves imminent danger to human life or safety he can serve an order prohibiting its use until it has been properly repaired or altered. Chapter V deals with welfare and provisions are made therein for such amenities as washing facilities for storing and drying clothing, for sitting , first aid appliances, canteens and creches and every factory is required under Section 49 wherein 500 or more workers are ordinarily employed to have such number of welfare officers as may be prescribed. The Rules also contain various provisions where the Inspector has to be consulted and his approval obtained for doing certain things. For instance Rule 65 (3) say that the manager of a factory shall submit for the approval of the Chief Inspector plans of the building to be constructed or adapted for use as a canteen. It is unnecessary to refer to several other provisions contained in the Act and the Rules which show that the Chief Inspector and his staff play a very important role in the working of the factory. 8. In the return which was filed in the High Court to the writ petition it was stated in paragraph 8 that the fees were being charged for the running of the whole establishment including the Factory Inspectorate which in its turn "provides free inspection and expert technical advice etc., to factory owners in matters connected with safety, health, welfare and the allied matters in respect of compliance with the provisions of the Factories Act". It has further been stated the in our country matters relating to health, safety, welfare and employment have to be looked after and the desired results have been sought to be achieved by the legislature by providing statutory inspection service. 9. According to Mr. Gokhale the Inspectors only carry out the duties laid on them under the Act and all that they have to do is to ensure that the statutory provisions and the rules are carried out properly and launch prosecutions against factory owners under the provisions of Chapter X of the Act in case of any breach or default on the part of the factory owners. We do not consider that the functions and duties of the Inspectorate are confined only to the limited task which has been suggested on behalf of the appellant company. A large number of provisions to which reference has been made, particularly in the Chapter dealing with safety, involve a good deal of technical knowledge and in the course of discharge of their duties and obligations the Inspectors are expected to give proper advice and guidance so that there may be due compliance with the provisions of the Act. It can well be said that on certain occasions factory owners are bound to receive a good dead of benefit by being saved from the consequences of the working of dangerous machines or employment of such processes as involve danger to human life by being warned at the proper time as to the defective nature of the machinery or of the taking of precautions which are enjoined under the Act. Similarly if a building or a machinery or a plant is in such a condition that it is dangerous to human life or safety the Inspector by serving a timely notice on the manager saves the factory owner from all the consequences of proper repairs not being done in time to the building or the machinery. Indeed it seems to us that the nature of the work of the Inspector is such that he is to render as much, if not more service than a Commissioner would, in the matter of supervision, regulation and control over the way in which the management of the trustees of religious and charitable endowment was concerned. The High Court further found, which finding being of fact, must be considered as final that 60 per cent of the amount of licence fees which were being realized was actually spent on services rendered to the factory owners. It can, therefore, hardly be contended that the levy of the licence fee was wholly unrelated to the expenditure incurred out of the total realisation. Before the High Court the appellant company never made out any case that the collections on account of the licence fee were merged in the general public revenue and were not appropriated in the manner laid down for the appropriation of expenses for the department concerned.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It is difficult to agree. In each case where the question arises whether the levy is in the nature of a fee the entire scheme of the statutory provisions, the duties and obligations imposed on the inspecting staff and the nature of work done by them will have to be examined for the purpose of determining the rendering of the services which would make the levy a fee. It is quite apparent that in the Liberty Cinema case it was found that no service of any kind was being or could be rendered and for that reason the levy was held to be a tax and not a fee. In our judgment the present case falls within the other class of cases to which reference has been made in which contributions for the purpose of maintaining an authority and the staff for supervising and controlling public institutions like Maths etc., were held to be fee and not taxWe do not consider that the functions and duties of the Inspectorate are confined only to the limited task which has been suggested on behalf of the appellant company. A large number of provisions to which reference has been made, particularly in the Chapter dealing with safety, involve a good deal of technical knowledge and in the course of discharge of their duties and obligations the Inspectors are expected to give proper advice and guidance so that there may be due compliance with the provisions of the Act. It can well be said that on certain occasions factory owners are bound to receive a good dead of benefit by being saved from the consequences of the working of dangerous machines or employment of such processes as involve danger to human life by being warned at the proper time as to the defective nature of the machinery or of the taking of precautions which are enjoined under the Act. Similarly if a building or a machinery or a plant is in such a condition that it is dangerous to human life or safety the Inspector by serving a timely notice on the manager saves the factory owner from all the consequences of proper repairs not being done in time to the building or the machinery. Indeed it seems to us that the nature of the work of the Inspector is such that he is to render as much, if not more service than a Commissioner would, in the matter of supervision, regulation and control over the way in which the management of the trustees of religious and charitable endowment was concerned. The High Court further found, which finding being of fact, must be considered as final that 60 per cent of the amount of licence fees which were being realized was actually spent on services rendered to the factory owners. It can, therefore, hardly be contended that the levy of the licence fee was wholly unrelated to the expenditure incurred out of the total realisation. Before the High Court the appellant company never made out any case that the collections on account of the licence fee were merged in the general public revenue and were not appropriated in the manner laid down for the appropriation of expenses for the department concerne