Hi, Kindly let me know, Can Occupier and a Manager under FA be same? Rgds Mahesh
From India, Mangaluru
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1From India, Mangaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
No. An occupier is different from a manager. An occupier is one who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory as defined by Sec. 2(n) of the Factories Act. They control all administrative, financial, and manufacturing decisions relating to a factory. In the case of a partnership firm, any one of the partners may be the occupier. In the case of a company, a managing director or any of the directors can be the occupier. The occupier is accountable for the overall functioning of the factory.
A manager is not responsible for the overall control of the factory. According to Sec. 64, a manager is an officer of the factory, holding a position of supervision, control, and confidentiality. A manager has limited power to make decisions relating to the daily and routine functions of the factory.
B. Saikumar
HR & Labor Law Advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(5)
Amend(0)
A manager is not responsible for the overall control of the factory. According to Sec. 64, a manager is an officer of the factory, holding a position of supervision, control, and confidentiality. A manager has limited power to make decisions relating to the daily and routine functions of the factory.
B. Saikumar
HR & Labor Law Advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(5)Amend(0)
Dear Mahesh,
Relevant sections 7(4) and 7(5) of the Factories Act, 1948 may be read as follows for your query:
Section 7(4): Whenever a new manager is appointed, the occupier shall send a written notice to the Inspector and a copy to the Chief Inspector within seven days from the date on which such person takes over charge.
Section 7(5): During a period for which no person has been designated as the manager of a factory, or during which the designated person does not manage the factory, any person found acting as the manager, or if no such person is found, the occupier himself, shall be deemed to be the manager of the factory for the purposes of this Act.
This indicates that if no person is appointed as the manager by the occupier, then the occupier himself shall be deemed the manager of the factory for the purposes of this Act.
R.N.KHOLA
[Welcome Skylark Associates](http://www.skylarkassociates.com/)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(8)
Amend(0)
0
0
Relevant sections 7(4) and 7(5) of the Factories Act, 1948 may be read as follows for your query:
Section 7(4): Whenever a new manager is appointed, the occupier shall send a written notice to the Inspector and a copy to the Chief Inspector within seven days from the date on which such person takes over charge.
Section 7(5): During a period for which no person has been designated as the manager of a factory, or during which the designated person does not manage the factory, any person found acting as the manager, or if no such person is found, the occupier himself, shall be deemed to be the manager of the factory for the purposes of this Act.
This indicates that if no person is appointed as the manager by the occupier, then the occupier himself shall be deemed the manager of the factory for the purposes of this Act.
R.N.KHOLA
[Welcome Skylark Associates](http://www.skylarkassociates.com/)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(8)+3 more
Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-[response] The interpretation provided is correct based on Section 7(4) and 7(5) of the Factories Act, 1948. (1 Acknowledge point)
0
0
Hi, Mr. Khola has cleared the point for you. For more details you may refer the Act attached here with, related provision have been highlighted as required.....
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mahesh,
As already stated, the Factories Act envisages a Factory Manager as a nominee of the "Occupier" entrusted with the task of facilitating due compliance of the Act. He has been assigned specific responsibilities under the Act. For getting a Factory License, the occupier has to name the Factory Manager. In case the named Factory Manager is not in employment, it is in the interest of the Occupier to nominate the successor and inform the Factory Inspector. If he fails to do so, the entire responsibility of the Factory Manager would fall on his shoulders.
Regards,
KK
From India, Bhopal
Acknowledge(3)
Amend(0)
0
0
As already stated, the Factories Act envisages a Factory Manager as a nominee of the "Occupier" entrusted with the task of facilitating due compliance of the Act. He has been assigned specific responsibilities under the Act. For getting a Factory License, the occupier has to name the Factory Manager. In case the named Factory Manager is not in employment, it is in the interest of the Occupier to nominate the successor and inform the Factory Inspector. If he fails to do so, the entire responsibility of the Factory Manager would fall on his shoulders.
Regards,
KK
From India, Bhopal
Acknowledge(3)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-The user's reply is correct in explaining the relationship between the Occupier and the Factory Manager under the Factories Act. Well done! (1 Acknowledge point)
0
0
A factory manager or owner can be an occupier of the factory. If the factory does not have any factory manager, then the owner can be an occupier and factory manager for the sake of the factory license. In case of any incidents happening in the factory, such as accidental death, the factory director will lodge the case against the occupier as well as the factory manager.
Regards,
Rajeev Dixit
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regards,
Rajeev Dixit
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Occupier and Factory Manager are different legal entities. To be an occupier, a person should be at least a director of the company. However, a person cannot have two designations for the same factory.
Regards,
Sachin Verma
09927356444.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
Regards,
Sachin Verma
09927356444.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-[response] (1 Acknowledge point)
0
0
Simply saying, Occupier can entrusted with Manager Role but Manager cannot be considered AS Occupier. P PALANIVELAN
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
According to Factories Act 1948, the occupier is a person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. The landmark case in this regard is JK Industries Ltd and others v. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers and others (Supreme Court, 1996), where in the Supreme Court The court went on to say that the word “ultimate” in common parlance means last or final. Therefore, where a company owns or runs a factory, it is the company that has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory and would therefore be the occupier. Essentially, the law as declared by the Supreme Court was that a company cannot nominate any one of its employees or officers, except a director of the company, to whom the effective control can be vested, as the occupier of the factory.
There is a vast difference between a person having ultimate control of the affairs of a factory and one who has immediate or day-to-day control over the affairs of the factory. The manager or any other employee, of whatever status, can be nominated by the board of directors of the owner company to have immediate or day-to-day or even supervisory control over the affairs of the factory.
Therefore, a company can nominate a person as a Manager to carry on the day to day affairs of the factory to assume responsibility for the liabilities if any arising, but the fact that the director designated as the occupier is ignorant about the management of the factory which has been entrusted to a manager or some other employee and is himself not responsible for the contravention does not absolve him of occupier's primary liability. The manager, at best, can also be jointly held liable (section 92).
Rajusiachen
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
0
0
There is a vast difference between a person having ultimate control of the affairs of a factory and one who has immediate or day-to-day control over the affairs of the factory. The manager or any other employee, of whatever status, can be nominated by the board of directors of the owner company to have immediate or day-to-day or even supervisory control over the affairs of the factory.
Therefore, a company can nominate a person as a Manager to carry on the day to day affairs of the factory to assume responsibility for the liabilities if any arising, but the fact that the director designated as the occupier is ignorant about the management of the factory which has been entrusted to a manager or some other employee and is himself not responsible for the contravention does not absolve him of occupier's primary liability. The manager, at best, can also be jointly held liable (section 92).
Rajusiachen
From India, Coimbatore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-The user's reply is accurate. (1 Acknowledge point)
0
0
An Occupier can be a manager,if no manager has been appointed.But they are different as per Law and have different duties & responsibilities.
From India, Bokaro
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
From India, Bokaro
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-The user reply is correct. An Occupier can also act as a Manager if no separate Manager has been appointed, but they have distinct legal responsibilities. Thank you for sharing your insights! (1 Acknowledge point)
0
0
In addition to what has been highlighted by others, an 'occupier' has business stakes in the company, he is a share holder & is on the board of directors of the company.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi all,
Can anybody please explain if the submission of technical drawings to the local authorities is the responsibility of the HR or technical staff? Please explain the process and requirements for submitting drawings.
Thanks,
Harin
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
Can anybody please explain if the submission of technical drawings to the local authorities is the responsibility of the HR or technical staff? Please explain the process and requirements for submitting drawings.
Thanks,
Harin
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-The submission of technical drawings to local authorities is typically the responsibility of the technical staff, not HR. They are experts in this field. Thank you for your question and interest in understanding these processes. (1 Acknowledge point)
0
0
An occupier is different from a manager. He is one who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. He controls all administrative, financial, and manufacturing decisions relating to a factory. An occupier is accountable for the overall functioning of the factory, whereas a manager is not responsible for overall control of the factory. As per Sec. 64, a manager is an officer of the factory, holding a position of supervision and control, and a position of confidentiality. A manager has limited power to make decisions relating to the daily and routine functions of the factory and for ensuring compliance with provisions of the Factory Act/Rules. An occupier has to be a director, and there is no such condition or binding for a manager.
Regards,
S.K. Tyagi (09456607424)
Sr. Manager-LEGAL
Mawana Sugar Works, Mawana
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
Regards,
S.K. Tyagi (09456607424)
Sr. Manager-LEGAL
Mawana Sugar Works, Mawana
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-The user reply is factually correct regarding the distinction between an Occupier and a Manager under the Factory Act. No amendments needed. (1 Acknowledge point)
0
0
Regarding the Definition,
"adult" means a person who has completed his fifteenth year of age;
It means The Act considers the individual who has completed his 15 years of age, Please do not confuse it with the MAJORITY (18 years).
The Act concentrates only on the required details as required under the situation which fall under the provisions of the Act; they do not have their general application but for the purpose.
The Constitution, Indian Penal Code, and both Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes (unless exempted under those laws) have general application throughout India. But not those statutes which are enacted for the specific purpose, The Factories Act to regulate the law for given situations. Law is a tree whereas an Act is a branch; the tree is treated as a whole applicable to all, but the branch only to the extent of that specific branch. So wherever you find a difference under such Acts or rules, you shall give its meaning in specific to that particular purpose only.
Hope I made it clear to you with more than necessary explanation ;-)
Have a nice day.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"adult" means a person who has completed his fifteenth year of age;
It means The Act considers the individual who has completed his 15 years of age, Please do not confuse it with the MAJORITY (18 years).
The Act concentrates only on the required details as required under the situation which fall under the provisions of the Act; they do not have their general application but for the purpose.
The Constitution, Indian Penal Code, and both Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes (unless exempted under those laws) have general application throughout India. But not those statutes which are enacted for the specific purpose, The Factories Act to regulate the law for given situations. Law is a tree whereas an Act is a branch; the tree is treated as a whole applicable to all, but the branch only to the extent of that specific branch. So wherever you find a difference under such Acts or rules, you shall give its meaning in specific to that particular purpose only.
Hope I made it clear to you with more than necessary explanation ;-)
Have a nice day.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
'Adult', according to the Factories Act, means a person who has completed their eighteenth year of age, and 'Adolescent' means a person who has completed their fifteenth year of age but has not completed their eighteenth year. Thus, there is a difference between 'adult' and 'adolescent'.
B. Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
B. Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"adult" means a person who has completed his fifteenth year of age; is the exact definition given under the Act, it is not adolescent!
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello BSSV,
Sec. 2(a) of the Factories Act 1948 defines 'adult.' I am reproducing verbatim Sec. 2(a) below: "(a) 'adult' means a person who has completed his eighteenth year of age."
Sec. 2(b) defines 'adolescent.' I am reproducing verbatim Sec. 2(b) below: "(b) 'adolescent' means a person who has completed his fifteenth year of age but has not completed his eighteenth year."
If 'adult' according to you is the person who has completed his fifteenth year of age, then who is 'adolescent' referred to by the Factories Act?
B. Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sec. 2(a) of the Factories Act 1948 defines 'adult.' I am reproducing verbatim Sec. 2(a) below: "(a) 'adult' means a person who has completed his eighteenth year of age."
Sec. 2(b) defines 'adolescent.' I am reproducing verbatim Sec. 2(b) below: "(b) 'adolescent' means a person who has completed his fifteenth year of age but has not completed his eighteenth year."
If 'adult' according to you is the person who has completed his fifteenth year of age, then who is 'adolescent' referred to by the Factories Act?
B. Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you so much, Dear Saikumar. It was an honest mistake!! I do not know what I was thinking...
Here is the link I had referred to since I could not find my data then: [URL]
There's a mistake in that, but sincere and hearty thanks for correcting me. :)
Have a nice day....
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Here is the link I had referred to since I could not find my data then: [URL]
There's a mistake in that, but sincere and hearty thanks for correcting me. :)
Have a nice day....
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
Dear BSSV No regrets. It happens with your every one.Go ahead. B.Saikumar HR & labour Law advisor Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear friends,
I read the question raised in this thread, which is - CAN OCCUPIER AND MANAGER UNDER FA BE THE SAME?
The views expressed by many friends differ in opinion due to various reasons explained. But the relevant point is, where is the bar under the Act that an occupier cannot be the Manager of the Factory?
Keeping aside other aspects like sharing of responsibility, day-to-day management, etc., for the time being; let us examine the issue on legal footing alone.
The word "Occupier" has been defined under section 2 (n) of the Act, but there is no definition prescribed for the Manager in the Act.
Under sec. 2(n), it is further explained as to who can be the Occupier of a factory for the purpose of the Act. I am not going into the details of the section, only the important point is an occupier should be a partner or member of the firm if it is a firm or association. And in the case of the company, it should be one of the Directors (who has ultimate control).
Now going further in section 7 of the Act, the name of Manager is required when the notice is sent to the Director of the factory disclosing the name of the occupier. See 7(1) (f).
This section does not make it mandatory that the Manager should be a different person than the occupier.
Furthermore, Section 7 (5) of the Act makes it mandatory that if there is no person designated or found working as Manager in the factory, the Occupier IS DEEMED TO BE THE MANAGER FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. Meaning thereby there is no legal bar under the Act that the Occupier cannot be the Manager. If there was another intention of the legislator, this provision would certainly not be formed.
Moreover, when under section 269 of the Companies Act, an MD or WTD may also be the Manager for the purpose of the Companies Act, why can't an occupier (Director) also be the Manager under the Factory Act?
For the aforesaid conclusion, it is very obvious that there is no legal bar that an occupier and manager should be different persons. An Occupier may also be the Manager under the Factories Act.
However, keeping in view the other aspects like sharing of responsibility, etc., it is advisable always that it should be some other individual.
PKJain
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
I read the question raised in this thread, which is - CAN OCCUPIER AND MANAGER UNDER FA BE THE SAME?
The views expressed by many friends differ in opinion due to various reasons explained. But the relevant point is, where is the bar under the Act that an occupier cannot be the Manager of the Factory?
Keeping aside other aspects like sharing of responsibility, day-to-day management, etc., for the time being; let us examine the issue on legal footing alone.
The word "Occupier" has been defined under section 2 (n) of the Act, but there is no definition prescribed for the Manager in the Act.
Under sec. 2(n), it is further explained as to who can be the Occupier of a factory for the purpose of the Act. I am not going into the details of the section, only the important point is an occupier should be a partner or member of the firm if it is a firm or association. And in the case of the company, it should be one of the Directors (who has ultimate control).
Now going further in section 7 of the Act, the name of Manager is required when the notice is sent to the Director of the factory disclosing the name of the occupier. See 7(1) (f).
This section does not make it mandatory that the Manager should be a different person than the occupier.
Furthermore, Section 7 (5) of the Act makes it mandatory that if there is no person designated or found working as Manager in the factory, the Occupier IS DEEMED TO BE THE MANAGER FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. Meaning thereby there is no legal bar under the Act that the Occupier cannot be the Manager. If there was another intention of the legislator, this provision would certainly not be formed.
Moreover, when under section 269 of the Companies Act, an MD or WTD may also be the Manager for the purpose of the Companies Act, why can't an occupier (Director) also be the Manager under the Factory Act?
For the aforesaid conclusion, it is very obvious that there is no legal bar that an occupier and manager should be different persons. An Occupier may also be the Manager under the Factories Act.
However, keeping in view the other aspects like sharing of responsibility, etc., it is advisable always that it should be some other individual.
PKJain
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-The user's reply is correct. It accurately explains that there is no legal bar under the Factories Act for an occupier to also be the manager of a factory. The user provided a comprehensive legal analysis of the situation. (1 Acknowledge point)
0
0
There is absolutely no bar for the occupier to be the manager, as is evident from Sec. 7(5) of the Factories Act. This is because the occupier is in charge of the overall control over the affairs of the company. However, the fact that the Act desires to have a separate entity as the manager is evident from the same provision, Sec. 7(5).
Sec. 7(5) states that the occupier shall be deemed to be the manager during the period when no person is designated as the manager or even if designated as the manager, he does not function as the manager. Thus, this section expects the occupier to act as a manager only until he designates someone as the manager, implying that he should designate someone as the manager. The intention of this provision does not seem to favor the occupier to be the manager eternally; it is only a stop-gap arrangement.
Furthermore, Sec. 7(1)(f) also requires the occupier to send notice to the Inspector intimating the name of the manager for the purposes of the Act. This also shows that the Act desires to have a separate entity called the manager. Thus, both the occupier and the manager are different. Although an occupier can be a manager, it is for a limited or temporary period. This is my view.
B. Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
0
0
Sec. 7(5) states that the occupier shall be deemed to be the manager during the period when no person is designated as the manager or even if designated as the manager, he does not function as the manager. Thus, this section expects the occupier to act as a manager only until he designates someone as the manager, implying that he should designate someone as the manager. The intention of this provision does not seem to favor the occupier to be the manager eternally; it is only a stop-gap arrangement.
Furthermore, Sec. 7(1)(f) also requires the occupier to send notice to the Inspector intimating the name of the manager for the purposes of the Act. This also shows that the Act desires to have a separate entity called the manager. Thus, both the occupier and the manager are different. Although an occupier can be a manager, it is for a limited or temporary period. This is my view.
B. Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-The user reply is correct. (1 Acknowledge point)
0
0
Mr. Mahesh As per the above suggestion of Mr. SaiKumar and the suggestion of mine position is very clear and we hope you will be able to take a final decision and solve your problem. Thanks Pkjain.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Gathering data for an AI comment.... Sending emails to relevant members...
Join Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Factories Act.doc
LIST OF HOLIDAYS UNDER FACTORIES ACT - ANDHRA PRADESH.pdf
CiteHR.AI
(Fact Checked)-The user's reply is accurate in distinguishing between an occupier and a manager under the Factories Act, citing the definitions and responsibilities correctly. (1 Acknowledge point)