V. Bhargava, J. - (1.) In both these writ applications, the petitioners have asked for a writ o mandamus, restraining the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Labour Commissioner, U. P. Kanpur, from enforcing and promulgating Rules. Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Rules framed under the Factories Act, 1948, and published in Government Notification no. 2401 (L(sic))/XVIII.543(L)/47, dated 29-6-1949. The petitioner in Writ Application No. 208 of 1950 is the Employers' Association of Northern India which has moved this application on behalf of seventeen sugar factories which are members of the Association. The other application has been moved by the New Victoria Mills Company, Limited, Kanpur. In both these applications, the validity of Rules 5 to 9 just mentioned has been challenged. It is alleged that though these rules purport to be framed under Sub-section (2) of Section 49, Factories Act, 1948, they do not come within the purview of that Sub-section and are consequently ultra vires of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. An additional ground has been taken in writ Application no. 208 of 1950. It is based on the nature of working of the sugar factories. It was contended by the petitioner in this petition that sugar factories employ 500 or more workers during the crushing season only which usually lasts for about four months. Daring the remaining portion of the year, the number of workers employed by these 17 factories goes down below 500 and consequently it was contended that it cannot be said that these sugar factories ordinarily employ 500 or more workers which is an essential requirement for the applicability of Section 49, Factories Act, 1948, and the rules thereunder.
(2.) We may first consider the latter ground taken by the Employers' Association in writ Application No. 208 of 1950. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that because the sugar factories employ 500 or more workers during the crushing season only, it should be held that in the sugar factories 500 or more workers are not ordinarily employed. The contention is based on the interpretation of the word 'ordinarily.' It has been argued that since the working season, when there are 500 or more workers, forma only a minor part of the year, it cannot be said that 500 or more workers are ordinarily employed in the sugar factories. To interpret the word 'ordinarily,' we can get assistance from the same word as used in the definition of the term 'factory' in this very Act. Clause (m) of Section 2, Factories Act, 1948, defines factory as follows : "(m) 'Factory' means any premises including the precincts thereof (i) whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily as carried on, or (ii) *****" It is undisputed that the manufacturing process in a sugar factory is carried on only daring the crushing season which is also the period during which the factory employees 500 or more workers. Under the first portion defining a 'factory,' the premises would be a 'factory' only for the period during which the manufacturing process is actually being carried on with the aid of power; for the period during which the manufacturing process is not actually carried on, the premises can be a 'factory' only under the second portion of the definition which makes the premises a 'factory' if the manufacturing process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power in these premises. It cannot be said that merely because no manufacturing process is carried on during the off season, sugar factories cease to be factories within the meaning of this Act. It is obvious that the word 'ordinarily' which was used in the definition was meant to be interpreted with reference to the nature of the factories to which it bad to be applied. Factories, which, in the very nature of things, carry on the manufacturing process for only a limited period during a year and utilise the remaining period for ancillary work, such as the cleaning and repairing of the machinery, purchasing of stocks etc., must be deemed to be factories throughout the year even though they do not carry on the manufacturing process during the off season. The word 'ordinarily' in this definition cannot be interpreted in the sense in which it is used in common parlance. It must be interpreted with reference to the intention and purposes of the Act in which it has been used and with reference to the subject-matter to which the Act has to be applied. The principle that general words are to be construed with reference to the intention of the statute in which they occur and to the subject-matter to which they have to be applied is well recognised and has been fully discussed by Maxwell in his book on The Interpretation of Statutes. When the word 'ordinarily' has to be as interpreted in the definition of 'factory,' a similar interpretation must be put on the word 'ordinarily' used in Section 49 when that section is applied to sugar factories. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 49 Factories Act, 1948, cannot be applied at all to sugar factories or to other factories which have a limited working season. This question may be looked at from another angle. Even the factories which work throughout the year do not necessarily work for all the 24 hours every day. In fact, there is quite a large number of factories which work for only 8 or 9 hours out of 24 hours every day. This limitation on the working hours may be due to rules prescribed under various statutes or may be due to the exigencies and circumstances in which the factories are working. Even if the factories carry on the manufacturing; process for only 8 or 9 hours a day, there can be no doubt that it will have to be held that the manufacturing is ordinarily carried on in them. This ground for holding that these rules do not apply to seasonal factories like sugar factories, therefore, fails.
(3.) The second contention which is common to both the applications is that Rules NOS. 5 to 9 are beyond the scope of Sub-section (2) of Section 49 which is the only provision in the Factories Act under which these rules have been framed. Sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Act lays down that "the Provincial Government may prescribe the duties qualifications and conditions of service of officers employed under Sub-section (1)." The learned counsel for the petitioners in both these applications has contended that these rules do not merely prescribe the duties, qualifications and conditions of service of officers but go far beyond them and consequently they are beyond the rule-making powers of the Provincial Government. We are unable to accept this contention-so far as Rule 6 is concerned. Rule 6 lays down that there shall be three grades of Welfare Officers, drawing different scales of pay. Grade I which carries the highest scale of pay is meant for Welfare Officers employed in factories ordinarily employing 2500 or more workers per day. Grades II and III relate to factories ordinarily employing from 1,000 to 2,499 workers per day and from 500 to 999 workers per day respectively. It is quite obvious that the prescription of these officers and their scales of pay is nothing except the conditions of service of these officers. It was obviously competent for the Provincial Government, when prescribing the grades of officers, to make a distinction between Welfare Officers employed for factories employing more workers and those employing a smaller number. The prescription of the scales of pay is also quite clearly one relating to the conditions of service of the officers. This rule, therefore, clearly falls within the purview of the rule-making power of the Provincial Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 49, Factories Act 1948, and is therefore, a valid rule.;