STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs JAMNABHAI PURSHOTTAM ASSAR

The Supreme Court held that the respondent was not an 'occupier' under Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948, as he lacked control over the five firms operating the factory. The Court clarified that Section 85(1)(ii) does not apply when workers operate independently without the owner's permission or agreement. Consequently, the High Court's decision to absolve the respondent from the obligation to obtain licenses under Rule 3A of the Bombay Factory Rules, 1950, was upheld, affirming that the conditions for the notification under Section 85(1)(ii) were not met.