Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.V.KRISHNA RAO, NARASIMHAM
Public Prosecutor - Appellant
Versus
Vattem Venkatramayya - Respondent
Decided On : 03-09-62
FACTORIES ACT - SECTION 117 - CONSTRUCTION AND EFFECT - PROTECTION TO OCCUPIERS AND MANAGERS OF FACTORIES - SCOPE AND EXTENT - GOOD FAITH - MEANING - SECTION 63 - PROHIBITION AGAINST EMPLOYMENT OF WORKERS BEYOND SPECIFIED HOURS - SECTION 59 - PAYMENT OF EXTRA WAGES FOR OVERTIME WORK - NO CONFLICT - SECTION 101 - EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, the manager of a rice mill, was prosecuted for allowing a woman worker to work overtime beyond the period fixed for her under Section 61 of the Factories Act, 1948. The respondent's defense was that the worker was a piecetime worker, that she was paid extra wages for working overtime as required by Section 59 of the Act, and that he bona fide believed that he could employ casual labor overtime, subject to the payment of overtime wages. The trial Magistrate acquitted the respondent, holding that there was no mens rea and that the provisions of Sections 59 and 63 of the Act should be interpreted to allow for the employment of casual labor overtime if overtime wages were paid.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that Section 117 of the Factories Act, 1948, which provides protection from civil and criminal liability for things done or intended to be done under the Act, applies to occupiers and managers of factories. The Court interpreted the expression "anything done or intended to be done under this Act" in Section 117 as describing the provenance or source of the thing done or intended to be done, and held that the test for determining whether Section 117 applies is whether the person proceeded against can reasonably claim that the act complained of was necessitated by one or more of the provisions of the Act and whether he acted in good faith to give effect to the provisions of the Act. The Court further held that there is no necessary inconsistency between Sections 59 and 63 of the Act, as Section 59 merely creates an additional liability qua the worker to pay extra wages for overtime work, while Section 63 prohibits hours of work not in accordance with Sections 61 and 62.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 117 of the Factories Act, 1948, applies to occupiers and managers of factories? 2. Whether there is a conflict between Sections 59 and 63 of the Factories Act, 1948?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 117 of the Factories Act, 1948, applies to occupiers and managers of factories. The expression "anything done or intended to be done under this Act" in Section 117 describes the provenance or source of the thing done or intended to be done. The test for determining whether Section 117 applies is whether the person proceeded against can reasonably claim that the act complained of was necessitated by one or more of the provisions of the Act and whether he acted in good faith to give effect to the provisions of the Act. 2. There is no conflict between Sections 59 and 63 of the Factories Act, 1948. Section 59 merely creates an additional liability qua the worker to pay extra wages for overtime work, while Section 63 prohibits hours of work not in accordance with Sections 61 and 62.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, holding that the trial Magistrate was not bound to convict the respondent in light of the decision in Lakshmaiah Naidu v. State, 1958 ALT 804: (AIR 1959 Andh Pra 536), which held that the employment of casual labor overtime is not illegal if overtime wages are paid.
( 1 ) THIS appeal, which has been referred to a Division Bench by Sharfuddin Ahmed, J. , as he dissented from the decisions in Public Prosecutor v. Mangaldas Thakker, 1957-2 Andh WR 455: (AIR 1958 Andh Pra 79), and Lakshmaiah Naidu v. State, 1958 ALT 804: (AIR 1959 Andh Pra 536), raises questions as to the construction and effect of Section 117 of the Factories Act (LXIII of 1948), hereinafter called the Act.
( 2 ) THE material facts are briefly these. At 12. 30 p. m. on 14-7-1959, the Additional Inspector of Factories at Gudivada (P. W. 1) visited the factory known as "sri, Rama Seshasayi Rice Mill" and found one woman worker by name Karra Lakshmamma, working at the paddy sieve. This was beyond the period of work from 8. 30 A. M. to 12 noon fixed for her beforehand under Section 61 and was, therefore, a contravention of Section 63 of the Act. Consequently, the respondent, who was the manager of the factory, was prosecuted for having committed an offeree punishable under Section 92 of the Act. The respondents defence was that Karra Lakshmamma was a piecetime worker, that she was paid extra wages for working overtime from 12 Noon to 1 p. m. as required by Section 59 of the Act and that the respondent bona fide believed that he could employ casual labour overtime, subject to the payment of overtime wages. The trial Magistrate observed that the facts were on all fours with the case in 1958 Andh LT 304: (AIR 1959 Andh Pra 536 ). He accordingly held that on a reading of Sections 59 and 63 of the Act together, it is not illegal to employ a casual worker overtime, if the worker was compensated by overtime wages. He also held that even if any of the provisions of the Act have been contravened, there was no mens rea on the part of the respondent, which ingredient has to be established by the prosecution by reason of Section 117 of the Act. On these grounds, he acquitted the accused and the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State Government, has come upon appeal against of the acquittal.
( 3 ) IT may be useful at this stage to read the relevant portions of Sections 59, 63, 92 and 117 of the Act. They are in the following terms:"59 (1) Where a worker works in a factory for more than nine hours in any day or for more than fortyeight hours in any week, he shall, in respect of overtime work, be entitled to wages at the rate of twice his ordinary (sic) of wages. 63. No adult worker shall be required or allowed to work (sic) factory otherwise than in accordance with the notice (sic) of work for adults displayed in the factory and the entries made beforehand against his name m the register of adult workers of the factory. Section 92. Save as is otherwise expressly provided in this Act and subject to the provisions of Section 93, if in, or in respect of, any factory there Is any contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule made thereunder or of any order in writing given thereunder, the occupier and manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to 500 Rupees or with both. . . . . . . . . . . Section 117. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act. "
( 4 ) IN 1957-2 Andh WR 455: (AIR 1958 Andh Pra 79) the manager of a tobacco factory was prosecuted for the contravention of Section 63 or the Act, inasmuch as he had allowed the workers to work on a particular day beyond 5-30 p. m. which was the limit specified for their period or work. His defence was that on account of heavy rainfall, the workers came late and started work at 9 a. m. instead of at 7-30 A. M. and that they worked beyond 5-30 p. m. in order to make up their full hours of work for the day. The trial Magistrate acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no mens rea and that no offence had therefore been committed. The P
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
