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
455From India, Delhi
An occupier is different from manager heis one who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. He controls all administtrative, financial and manufacturing decisions relating to a factory. An occupier is accountable for overall functioning of the factory.whereas Manager is not responsibel for over all control of the factory and as per Sec.64, is an officer of the factory, holding a position of supervision and control and position of confidentiality and has limited power to take decisions relating to daily and routine functions of the factory and for compliance provisions of factory act/rules. An Occupier has to be director and there is no such condition/binding for Manager.
regards,
S.K.Tyagi(09456607424)
Sr.Manager-lEGAL
Mawana Sugar Works,
Mawana
From India, Delhi
regards,
S.K.Tyagi(09456607424)
Sr.Manager-lEGAL
Mawana Sugar Works,
Mawana
From India, Delhi
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 (18years).
The Act concentrates only on the required details as required under the situation which fall under the provisions of the Act, they not have there 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 through out India. But not those statures which are enacted for the specific purpose, The Factories Act to regulate the law for given situations. Law is a tree where as an Act is a branch, tree is treated as a whole applicable to all, but the branch only to the extent of that specific branch. So where ever you find 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
"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 (18years).
The Act concentrates only on the required details as required under the situation which fall under the provisions of the Act, they not have there 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 through out India. But not those statures which are enacted for the specific purpose, The Factories Act to regulate the law for given situations. Law is a tree where as an Act is a branch, tree is treated as a whole applicable to all, but the branch only to the extent of that specific branch. So where ever you find 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
'Adult', according Factories Act, means a person who has completed his eighteenth year of age and 'Adolescent' means a person who has completed his fifteenth year of age but has not completed his eighteen the year. Thus there is a difference between 'adult' and adolescent'.
B.Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
B.Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Hello BSSV
Sec.2(a) of the Factories Act 1948 defines 'adult'. Iam reproducing verbatum Sec.2(a) below.
"(a)'adult' means a person who has completed his eighteenth year of age"
Sec. 2(b) defines 'adolescent'.Iam reproducing verbatum 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 'adolesecent' referred to by the Factories Act .
B.Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Sec.2(a) of the Factories Act 1948 defines 'adult'. Iam reproducing verbatum Sec.2(a) below.
"(a)'adult' means a person who has completed his eighteenth year of age"
Sec. 2(b) defines 'adolescent'.Iam reproducing verbatum 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 'adolesecent' referred to by the Factories Act .
B.Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Thank you so much Dear Saikumar. It was honest mistake!! do not know what i was thinking......
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...AFWzYSCi7IAA7w
and that was the link i had referred, since i could not find my data then, and there's a mistake in that....... but sincere & hearty thanks for correcting me........ :)
have a nice day........
From India, Bangalore
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...AFWzYSCi7IAA7w
and that was the link i had referred, since i could not find my data then, and there's a mistake in that....... but sincere & hearty thanks for correcting me........ :)
have a nice day........
From India, Bangalore
Dear BSSV No regrets. It happens with your every one.Go ahead. B.Saikumar HR & labour Law advisor Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Dear friends,
I read the question raised in this thread that is-CAN OCCUIPER AND MANAGER UNDER FA BE SAME?
The views expressed by many friends are differed in the opinion due to various reasons explained. But the relevant point is that where is the bar under the Act that an occupier cannot be the Manager of the Factory?
Keeping aside the other aspect 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 in 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 case of the company it should be the one of Director (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 factory disclosing the name of occupier. See 7(1) (f).
This section does not make it mandatory that Manager should be a different person than occupier.
Furthermore, Section 7 (5) of the Act make it mandatory that if there is no person designated or found working as Manager in the factory the Occupier DEEMED TO BE MANAGER FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. Meaning there by there is no legal bar under the Act that Occupier cannot be the Manager. If there was other intention of the legislator this provision will certainly not be formed.
Moreover, when under section 269 of the Companies Act a MD or WTD may also be the Manager for the purpose of companies Act why not an occupier (Director) can also be Manager under Factory Act.
For the aforesaid conclusion it is very obvious that there is no legal bar that an occupier and manager should be different person. An Occupier may also be Manager under Factories Act.
However, keeping in view the other aspect like sharing of responsibility etc it is advisable always that it should be some other individual.
PKJain
From India, Delhi
I read the question raised in this thread that is-CAN OCCUIPER AND MANAGER UNDER FA BE SAME?
The views expressed by many friends are differed in the opinion due to various reasons explained. But the relevant point is that where is the bar under the Act that an occupier cannot be the Manager of the Factory?
Keeping aside the other aspect 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 in 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 case of the company it should be the one of Director (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 factory disclosing the name of occupier. See 7(1) (f).
This section does not make it mandatory that Manager should be a different person than occupier.
Furthermore, Section 7 (5) of the Act make it mandatory that if there is no person designated or found working as Manager in the factory the Occupier DEEMED TO BE MANAGER FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. Meaning there by there is no legal bar under the Act that Occupier cannot be the Manager. If there was other intention of the legislator this provision will certainly not be formed.
Moreover, when under section 269 of the Companies Act a MD or WTD may also be the Manager for the purpose of companies Act why not an occupier (Director) can also be Manager under Factory Act.
For the aforesaid conclusion it is very obvious that there is no legal bar that an occupier and manager should be different person. An Occupier may also be Manager under Factories Act.
However, keeping in view the other aspect like sharing of responsibility etc it is advisable always that it should be some other individual.
PKJain
From India, Delhi
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
H.R.Manager - Job Chart.doc
152120-very-use ful-hr-manageme nt-software-bui lt-excel-psa-hr -manager-mainta in-payrrol-exce l-soft.zip
Signs of a Good Manager.ppt