The expression "urgent repairs" in Rule 91 and the Schedule annexed to it refers to urgent repairs to the factory itself, not to urgent repairs to vehicles brought by the factory's customers.

Headnote:
FACTORIES ACT - SECTION 63, 64, 92 - RULE 91 - URGENT REPAIRS - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - EXEMPTION FROM STATUTORY WORKING HOURS - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, the occupier and manager of a factory, was charged with an offence under Section 63 read with Section 92 of the Factories Act for allowing his workmen to work beyond the statutory hours of work. The respondent claimed exemption under the provisions of Rule 91, arguing that the work carried out by his workmen constituted urgent repairs.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the expression "urgent repairs" in Rule 91 and the Schedule annexed to it refers to urgent repairs to the factory itself, not to urgent repairs to vehicles brought by the factory's customers. The court found that the respondent could not invoke the provisions of Rule 91 because he required his workmen to work beyond the statutory hours of work for attending to a call from his customer, not for effecting urgent repairs to his own factory.
Issues: 1. Whether the expression "urgent repairs" in Rule 91 and the Schedule annexed to it includes repairs to vehicles brought by the factory's customers. 2. Whether the respondent could invoke the provisions of Rule 91 to exempt his workmen from the statutory working hours.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the expression "urgent repairs" in Rule 91 and the Schedule annexed to it in the context of the overall scheme of the Factories Act and the purpose of the exemption granted for urgent repairs. The court found that the exemption was intended to protect the factory itself from serious jeopardy by allowing it to carry out urgent repairs to its own machinery, which would ultimately benefit the workmen employed in the factory. 2. The court held that the respondent could not invoke the provisions of Rule 91 because the work carried out by his workmen did not constitute urgent repairs to the factory itself. The court found that the respondent required his workmen to work beyond the statutory hours of work to attend to a call from his customer, which did not fall within the scope of the exemption granted for urgent repairs.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the lower court and convicted the respondent under Section 63 read with Section 92 of the Factories Act. The respondent was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 5/- in respect of each of the two offences.

JUDGMENT

1. These two appeals have been preferred by the State against the order of acquittal passed in favour of the respondent in two criminal cases filed against him. In both these cases the respondent was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 63 read with Section 92, Factories Act.

The learned Magistrate who tried this case has held that the offence charged was not proved. That is why he passed an order of acquittal in favour of the respondent. In the present appeals, the State contends that the orders of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate are based on an erroneous construction of the material provisions of Rule 91 framed under the Factories Act.

2. The facts leading to the prosecution are not in dispute. Mr. Keskar, the Junior Inspector of Factories, Kolhapur, visited the Sutaria Automobiles at 8.10 p.m. on 12-3-1955. The respondent is the occupier and manager of the Sutaria Automobiles. Sutaria Automobiles is a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act and it situated in the Cantonment area of Belgaum. The working hours as notified in this factory were 8 a.m. to 12 noon and 2 p.m. to 6 p.m.

On 12-3-1955 the Inspector found that three workers were working in the factory on motor car No. BYZ-3493 at the time when he visited the factory. He then recorded the statements of the workers and made his inspection remarks in the visit book. The inspector then filed a complaint against the respondent and alleged that the respondent had committed an offence under Section 63 read with Section 92, of the Indian Factories Act.

The respondent admitted these facts, but he urged that the work on which his workmen were engaged at the time when the Inspector visited his factory was in the nature of urgent repairs and he claimed exemption under the provisions of Rule 91, That is how the principal question which falls for decision is whether the work which the workmen in the factory of the respondent were carrying out at the material time can be said to constitute urgent repairs within the meaning of the proviso to Rule 91.

3. Before dealing with this narrow point of law, it may be relevant to refer to one or two facts. The work on which the workmen were engaged was connected with the clutch-plate and the gear of the car in question. The driver of the car went to the factory and stated that he had to go by night for urgent work and that he wanted to put his clutch-plate and gear in order before starting on the journey.

The respondents case was that this was a case of urgent repairs to the car of his customer, and since it was permissible to him to allow his workmen to work beyond the statutory hours of work for carrying out urgent repairs, he could not be said to have committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

4. Section 63 of the Act requires that the hours of work must correspond with the notice given under Section 61 and the register maintained under Section 62. No adult worker, says this section, shall be required or allowed to work in any factory otherwise than in accordance with the notice of periods of work for adults displayed in the factory and the entries made beforehand against his name in the register of adult workers of the factory.

It is well known that the provisions of this Act are intended for the benefit of workmen and they impose certain healthy restrictions on the working of factories in that behalf. Chapter VI deals with the working hours of adults and makes several provisions for the protection of workmen by laying down rules for regulating the work that may be exacted from workmen by factory owners. Under Section 51, no adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a factory for more than forty-eight hours in any week.

Section 52 prescribes the weekly holidays, which workmen must be allowed to enjoy. Section 54 deals with the daily hours of work and it lays down that subject to the provisions of Section 51 no adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a factory

Click Here to Read the rest of this document