Laundry and Dry‑Cleaning Constitute "Manufacturing Process" Under Factories Act; Complaint Is Restored to Magistrate

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan heard an appeal by the State of Goa challenging a Bombay High Court order which had quashed summons issued to a professional laundry operator under the Factories Act, 1948. The question before the Court was whether the commercial washing and dry‑cleaning operations carried on with power and employing more than nine workers amounted to a “manufacturing process” and thereby attracted the statutory regime of a factory.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment dated 06.09.2021 and restored the complaint and the order issuing process dated 04.12.2019 to the file of the JMFC, Panaji to proceed in accordance with law. The Court held that the Factories Act, being a welfare statute, required a liberal construction and that the plain language of Section 2(k) — which expressly included “washing, cleaning” — covered the respondent’s activities. The Court noted that “Where the words of statute are clear, the plain meaning has to be given effect.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The Act of 1948 defines ‘manufacturing process’ and we clearly find that ‘washing, cleaning’ and the activities carried out by the respondent with a view to its use, delivery or disposal are squarely attracted. The contention of the respondent that dry cleaning does not make any product usable, saleable or worthy of transport, delivery or disposal has only to be stated to be rejected. ‘Manufacturing process’ has been defined to mean any process for washing or cleaning with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal. The linen deposited with the launderer is, after washing and cleaning, delivered to the customer for use. The ingredients of the section are fully satisfied. There is nothing in the Act of 1948, which is repugnant in the subject or context, constraining us to jettison the definition. Hence, we reject the findings of the High Court and hold that the activity carried out which on facts is not disputed is clearly covered by the definition of ‘manufacturing process’ under Section 2(k) which, in turn, would bring the premises in question of the respondent under the definition of ‘factory’ under Section 2(m). If that were so, the complaint lodged against the respondent could not have been quashed.”

Background

The dispute arose after an inspection of the respondent’s central laundry unit on 20.05.2019 found absence of approved factory plans, lack of registration and licence under the Goa Rules, and employment of more than nine workers while using machinery powered by electricity. The State filed a complaint alleging offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act for running a factory without statutory compliance. The respondent replied that laundry and dry‑cleaning constituted a “service” and not a “manufacturing process”, relied on earlier precedents including a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision on dry‑cleaning, and produced registrations under the Shops and Establishments regime.

The JMFC issued process on 04.12.2019. The respondent moved the Bombay High Court which quashed the summons, holding that washing and dry‑cleaning did not involve such transformation as would render the activity a manufacturing process and relying on pre‑1989 precedents under the ESIC regime. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined Sections 2(k) and 2(m) of the Factories Act, the statute’s object and legislative history, and earlier decisions including this Court’s precedents on liberal construction of welfare statutes. It rejected the High Court’s reliance on Central Excise jurisprudence and pre‑amendment ESIC authority, observing that Parliament had specifically inserted “washing, cleaning” into the Factories Act definition to widen coverage. The Court distinguished Triplex Dry Cleaners and similar authorities as inapposite because those decisions arose under a prior statutory scheme before the EsIC Act incorporated the Factories Act definition. The appeal succeeded; the High Court order was set aside and the complaint and process were restored to the JMFC, to be proceeded with according to law. No interim directions were issued beyond restoration.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 306 (Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 1959 of 2022) Case Title: The State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shivan Desai, Advocate