An enquiry conducted by the Inspector of Factories under Sec. 9 of the Factories Act is not a full-fledged departmental proceeding against an employee and the principles of natural justice are not attracted in such an enquiry.

R.A.Sharma, J.

1. On March 14, 1991 in a fatal accident in Steel Melting Shop No. 3 of the factory belonging to the petitioners a worker Sagar Singh died. The Inspector of Factories (hereinafter referred to as the Inspector) on an enquiry found that the work in the factory was being done in an unsafe manner in contravention of the provisions of the Bihar Factories Rules. He prepared an enquiry report dated April 22, 1991 and sent it to the Managing Director and the General Manager of the petitioner-company (i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 and 3), who vide letter dated May 8, 1991 submitted their explanation and requested the Inspector for personal hearing if any further proceeding is to be taken in the matter. The Inspector vide his letter dated May 15, 1991 informed the petitioners that enquiry was held in presence of the petitioners representative and no further opportunity of hearing is required in such matter. On the basis of the said report a complaint was filed against the petitioners under Sec. 92 of the Factories Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pursuant to which a complaint case No. C-2-663/91 has been registered in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid letter of the Inspector dated May 15, 1991. Prayer for restraining the respondents from taking any action pursuant to the said enquiry report has also been made. There is also prayer for an order staying further proceeding in Complaint Case No. C-2-663/91 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. On May 30, 1991 this Court granted interim order in favour of the petitioners.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the enquiry could not have been conducted by the Inspector without giving full opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and his letter dated May 15, 1991 saying that no such opportunity is required under the law is, therefore, liable to be quashed. The submission is devoid of merit and has to be rejected for the following two reasons:

(i) Every occupier of the factory is required by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder to ensure health, safety and welfare of the workers while they are at work in the factory. Sec. 9 of the Act gives power to the Inspectors to enter any place, which is used as a factory in order to examine the premises, plant and machinery and inquire into any accident or dangerous occurrence. If the inspector is satisfied that the factory is being run in contravention of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and/or the accident resulting in death of or bodily injury to the workmen had taken place on account of negligence or non- compliance of statutory provisions and orders issued thereunder, a complaint under Sec. 92 of the Act can be filed against the occupier/manager for their prosecution and punishment. The Inspector by his report does not decide any persons right or obligation. The enquiry which he makes in connection with the accident is for his own satisfaction in order to find out as to whether a case for prosecution can be launched against the occupier (sic). Such an enquiry is not required to be conducted like a full-fledged departmental proceeding against an employee. The principles of natural justice are not attracted in such an enquiry. On a mere complaint filed under Sec. 92 of the Act occupier or the manager of the factory cannot be punished. The offence with regard to which the complaint is filed has to be pleaded and proved on the basis of the evidence produced before the concerned Court.

(ii) Even on facts, the petitioners grievance in this regard cannot be justified. In the instant case the enquiry was conducted by the Inspector in presence of the authorised representative of the petitioners in which the statements of some of the persons were also recorded. The enquiry was thus not an ex-parte enquiry. That apart