1991 PLP 1797 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 2(d)‑‑‑Factories Act (XXV of 1934), S.2(g)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Expressions "factory" and "commercial establishment"‑‑ Connotation‑‑‑`Kitchen' and `laundry' attached to hotel whether a factory within meaning of provisions of Factories Act, 1934 and thus liable to registration under the law‑‑‑Hotel would not fall under the definition given under S.2(g), Factories Act, 1934‑‑‑Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940 would cover and deal with hotels‑‑‑Expressions "commercial establishment" as defined under provision of S.2(d), Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940 would cover case relating to hotel‑‑ Expression "factory" and "commercial establishment", distinction‑‑‑Kitchen and laundry attached to hotel were excluded from the operation of Factories Act, 1934 and were not registrable under the Act.‑‑‑[Words and phrases]. Expressions "factory" and "commercial establishment" were two different organizations under two different laws viz. Factories Act, 1934 and Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940 and as such the two sections of the hotel were not at‑ all registrable under the Factories Act, 1934‑‑‑The clothes of the employees, table cloths of the hotel and the clothes of the people who stay in the hotel were washed in the laundry to provide a timely and necessary facility to the visitors. Similarly food was cooked in the kitchen which was supplied to the people who visited and stayed in the hotel and was also given to its employees. This itself was vitally necessary to run the hotel. This exercise cannot at all be said to be a manufacturing plant. Admittedly, nothing was made from raw material in the hotel as was done in a factory. It would not thus by any stretch of imagination make the premises a factory. The kitchen and laundry being a part and parcel of the hotel was excluded from the application of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1934 for the purposes of their registration. Sabtain Fazle for Petitioner. Irfarr Qadri AA.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31st March, 1991. This petition was admitted to regular hearing on 2‑7‑1969 by a Division Bench of this Court. The point involved in the case is as to whether the kitchen and laundry attached to Hotel Inter‑Continental, Lahore (now Pearl Continental) will make them a factory within the meaning of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1934. The stand taken by the respondent Labour Department is that a manufacturing process is carried out in these sections of the Hotel and as such they are liable to registration under the law. It had strenuously been opposed by the petitioner. Petitioner says that the kitchen and laundry are an integral part of his Hotel. The learned Law Officer says that if this interpretation of the respondent is accepted, then every house in Pakistan would be a factory provided requisite number of people are living in such houses. He contends that interpretation so given in this case appears to be ridiculous and is also contrary to law on the controversy. He is, therefore, not in a position to oppose the point raised and argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The position in the case is that petitioner is running the hotel since long. Mere kitchen and laundry attached to the hotel shall not convert it into a factory. In other words there is absolutely no manufacturing process being carried out in the said premises. In this view of the matter, the hotel does not fall under the definition given under [ section 2(G) of the Factories Act, 1934. There is a special enactment called Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940 which covers and deals with Hotels. The expression `commercial establishment' has been defined under section‑2(d) of the said Act. This expression "Commercial" establishment' shall cover the case of the petitioner. Thus the expressions `Factory' and `commercial establishment' are two different organizations under two different laws stated above and as such the above‑said two sections of the hotel are not at all registrable under the Factories Act, 1934. It is clear from the pleadings of the petitioner that the clothes of the employees, table cloths of the hotel and the clothes of the people who stay in the hotel are washed in the laundry to provided a timely and necessary facility to the visitors. Similarly food is cooked in the kitchen which is supplied to the people who visit and stay in the hotel and is also given to its employees. This itself is vitally necessary to run the hotel. In my considered view, this exercise cannot at all be said to be a manufacturing powers. Admittedly, nothing is made from raw material in the Hotel as is done in a factory. It will not thus by any stretch of I imagination make the premises a factory. No challenge has been thrown to the point propounded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the contrary as said above, it has frankly been conceded by the learned Law Officer. In view of the above discussion, I feel no hesitation in declaring the kitchen and laundry a part and parcel of the hotel so as to exclude it from the application of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1934 for the purposes of their registration. Accordingly the petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. AA./A‑1330/1, Petition allowed.