High Court Of Calcutta
S. K. MUKHERJEE, BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA
DEBESH KUMAR BHATTACHARYYA - Appellant
Versus
RISHRA STEEL LIMITED - Respondent
C. O. 3241 Of 1992
Decided On : 01/10/1994
Safety Officer - Termination of Service - Interpretation of Section 40b of the Factories Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Safety Officer, challenged the termination of his service, claiming it violated the West Bengal Factories (Safety) Officers Rules 1978. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal, leading to the present Revisional Application.
Finding of the Court:
The court interpreted Section 40b of the Factories Act, which mandates the appointment of Safety Officers under specific conditions. As no notification was issued as required by the Act, the petitioner's employment as a Safety Officer was not in compliance with the Act, leading to the dismissal of the Revisional Application.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 40b of the Factories Act, Compliance with West Bengal Factories (Safety) Officers Rules 1978
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the mandatory requirement of Section 40b, which includes the issuance of a notification, was not fulfilled in the petitioner's case, leading to the dismissal of the Revisional Application.
Final Decision: The Revisional Application was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
( 1 ) THE present Revisional Application is directed against an order dated 16th July, 1990, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Labour Department, an appellate authority under Rule 7 (6), of the West Bengal Factories (Safety Officers) Rules 1978, dismissing the appeal preferred by the revisional petitioner against the termination of his service. The petitioner claims to be a Safety Officer of J. K. Synthetics Limited, Rishra, and was appointed as such with effect from February 5th, 1991, the petitioner possessed the requisite training certificate ; on or about 26th May, 1984, the petitioner's services were terminated and such termination is the subject-matter of challenge being violative of the provisions of the West Bengal Factories (Safety) Officers Rules 1978. The petitioner challenged the said order of termination in appeal, which stood dismissed by the order dated 6th October, 1986, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government under provisions of sub-Rule (6) of the Rule (7) of the aforesaid Rules, which ultimately stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 16th July, 1990.
( 2 ) IN the present Revisional Application, Mr. Guha and Mr. Ganguly, appearing for the contesting parties, have endeavored to construe Section 40b of the Factories Act in support of the cases of their respective clients relating to the applicability of the provisions of West Bengal Factories (Safety) Officers Rules 1978. Mr. Guha has contended that the petitioner being a Safety Officer within the meaning of Rule 3 (b), of the said Rules, his termination, without compliance with requirements of different provisions of the said rules, is illegal and invalid. Mr. Gangully, on the other hand has contended that the petitioner, though designated as a Safety Offcer, was not a Safety Officer within the meaning of the said Clause and as such the termination of his service did not require compliance with the provisions of the Rules.
( 3 ) RULE 3 (b), defines a Safety Officer as one appointed under Section 40b, of the Act. Section 40b of the Factories Act imposes an obligation on the occupier to employ Safety Officers under certain circumstances. Section 40b runs as follows :40b (1) In every factory,- (i)wherein one thousand or more workers are ordinarily employed, or (ii)wherein, in the opinion of the State Government, any manufacturing process or operation is carried on, which process or operation involves any risk of bodily injury, poisoning or disease, or any other hazard to health, to the persons employed in the factory, the occupier shall, if so required by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, employ such number of Safety Officers as may he specified in that notification. (2) The duties, qualifications and conditions of service of Safety Officers shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government.
( 4 ) A plain reading of the said section clearly indicates that in every factory, the occupier is mandatorily obliged to appoint one or more Safety Officers on existence of two conditions. (i) wherein one thousand or more workers are ordinarily employed and the State Government issues notification in the official Gazette, requiring the occupier to employ Safety Officer or Officers, (ii) wherein, the State Government is of opinion that the manufacturing process or operation is carried on, which involves any risk of bodily injury, poisoning or disease, or any other hazard to health, to the persons employed in the factory, an issuance of notification in the above manner. It may be noticed that issuance of a notification is an indispensable condition for employment of Safety Officers in terms of Section 40b of the Factories Act in both the cases. In the instant case, admittedly, no such notification was issued and as such the mandatory requirement of Section 40b cannot be said to have been fulfilled to make employment of the petitioner as Safety Officer within the meaning of Clause
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.