Factories Act 1948 / Section 104A

Section 104A of the Factories Act, 1948: Onus of Proving Limits of What Is Practicable

Section 104A deals with the burden of proof in specified prosecutions under the Factories Act, 1948. Where an alleged offence consists of failure to comply with a statutory duty or requirement to do something, the person accused of that failure must prove the relevant defence concerning practicability.

Text of Section 104A

Section 104A - Onus of proving limits of what is practicable, etc.

In any proceeding for an offence for the contravention of any provision of this Act or rules made thereunder consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something, it shall be for the person who is alleged to have failed to comply with such duty or requirement, to prove that it was not reasonably practicable or, as the case may be, all practicable measures were taken to satisfy the duty or requirement.

Section 104A was inserted by the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987 (Act 20 of 1987), section 39, with effect from 1 December 1987.

Meaning and Legal Effect of Section 104A

The provision applies in proceedings for an offence where the alleged contravention is a failure to perform a duty or requirement imposed by the Factories Act or rules made under it. In that setting, Section 104A places the evidentiary burden on the person alleged to have failed to comply when the defence is that compliance was not reasonably practicable or that all practicable measures had already been taken.

In practical terms:
  • The prosecution must concern a failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something.
  • If the accused relies on the proposition that compliance was not reasonably practicable, the accused must prove it.
  • If the relevant statutory standard is the taking of all practicable measures, the accused must prove that those measures were taken.
  • The provision therefore changes who bears the burden on these particular matters of practicability.

What Does "Reasonably Practicable" Mean?

Section 104A itself does not separately define the expression "reasonably practicable." Its function is procedural and evidentiary: where that standard is relevant to the statutory duty in issue, the person relying on the limitation must establish the facts supporting it. The precise content of the underlying duty must therefore be read from the provision or rule alleged to have been contravened.

Relationship With Factory-Offence Proceedings

Section 104A should be read with the surrounding offence provisions of the Factories Act. For example, Section 105 regulates cognizance of offences, while Section 106 deals with limitation for prosecutions. Section 104A is narrower: it addresses the burden of proving the limits of what was practicable in a qualifying prosecution.

Current Legislative Context

Important: The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 contains a repeal-and-savings framework for the Factories Act, 1948, with repeal tied to the date notified for that purpose. For a current compliance or prosecution issue, check the applicable commencement and repeal notifications, transitional provisions, State rules and any saved action before relying on an older Factories Act provision.

This page preserves Section 104A as a reference to the Factories Act text and its legal operation where that enactment remains relevant, including saved, transitional or historical matters.

Official Legal Sources

Article reviewed for statutory context: 26 September 2026.