Washing & Dry Cleaning Of Clothes Qualfies As 'Manufacturing Process' Under Factories Act : Supreme Court

In a significant development, the Supreme Court today (March 3) ruled that activities such as washing, cleaning, and dry-cleaning fall within the definition of "manufacturing process" under the Factories Act, 1948, even if they do not result in the creation of a new tangible product.

Holding so, the Court added that the laundry business constitutes a "factory" under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 (“Act”) if they employ 10 or more workers and laundry work is carried out with the aid of power-operated machines used for cleaning and washing clothes.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing the appeal filed by the State of Goa against the High Court's decision to quash the JMFC's order, which issued process against the respondent for violations of the Factories Act, 1948.

The High Court held that dry cleaning does not qualify as a "manufacturing process”; therefore, the respondent's laundry business would not constitute a factory under the Act.

Before the Supreme Court, the State argued that under Section 2(k) of the Act, the laundry business qualifies as a "manufacturing process" since washing and cleaning clothes involve treating articles for use or delivery. Additionally, as the respondent employed more than nine workers and used power-operated machinery for washing, the premises met the definition of a "factory" under Section 2(m) of the Act.

Opposing the State's argument, the respondent argued that dry cleaning and washing clothes do not constitute a "manufacturing process" under the Factories Act, 1948, but a service required to be registered under the Shops and Establishments Act, not the Factories Act.

Finding merit in the State's argument, the judgment authored by Justice Viswanathan observed that the respondent's laundry business constitutes a "factory" under the Factories Act, 1948, and the process of washing and cleaning clothes qualifies as a "manufacturing process."

The Court rejected the respondent's argument that since the activity of washing and cleaning of clothes didn't create a new tangible product, the business doesn't fall under the “manufacturing process”. Instead, relying on the definition of the manufacturing process, the Court said that once the cloth deposited with the launderer is, after washing and cleaning, delivered to the customer for use, the ingredient of Section 2(k) stands fulfilled.

“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.”, the court observed.

“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.”, the court added.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the State's appeal and set aside the High Court's order, quashing the JMFC's order issuing process against the Respondent.

Case Title: THE STATE OF GOA & ANR. VERSUS NAMITA TRIPATHI

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 276

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearances:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shishir Deshpande, AOR Ms. Pooja Tripathi, Adv. Ms. Harshita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Verma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shivan Desai, Adv. Mr. Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Adv. Ms. Maria Viegas, Adv. Ms. Tahira Manezes, Adv. Ms. Riya Amonkar, Adv. Mr. Narender Kumar Verma, AOR