Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :P.N.BHAGWATI, N.M.MIABHOY
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
BAIJNATH BALSARAI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 212 of 1960
Decided On : 11/30/1960
Factories Act 1948 - Section 61 – Period of work for adults – Departmental enquiry - Respondent is Manager of factory of company is situate in Jamnagar and is governed by provisions of Factories Act - It is common ground that at material time a notice of periods of work for adults was displayed and correctly maintained in factory of Company as required by notice showed periods of work for adults working in first shift - Complainant who is Inspector of Factories received a letter Joint Secretary Mandal pointing out inter alia that though time of work of workers working in first shift in factory of company was one hours more work was being taken from workers in combing department every day and that work at rate of nine hours per day was thus being taken from workers resulting in work per week instead - On receipt of this information from Joint Secretary of Mandal Inspector of Factories addressed a letter respondent requesting respondent to explain why workers working in combing department of factory of Company were made to work - It appears from evidence that Inspector of Factories visited factory of Company found that three workers employed in the factory of Company on various month of May Inspector of factories thereafter received a respondent in which the respondent pointed out to Inspector of Factories circumstances in which workers employed in combing department had worked overtime - Held, Judges of Nagpur High Court who decided that case were dealing with provisions of Factories Act - But observations made by them apply with equal force to provisions of Factories Act decisions cited by question of to which we have already made a reference in earlier part of this judgment were also relied on by in support of the argument founded - We do not think these decisions advance the argument of any further - In none of these decisions do court find any discussion of question as to whether act which was alleged to constitute offence was done or intended to be done relevant Factories Act - It was assumed that act was done or intended to be done Act and that this particular requirement of was satisfied and only argument advanced was directed to question as to whether accused had acted in good faith - Record shows that respondent was the bona fide impression that by paying extra wages respondent could require or allow workers to work in factory and that by doing so was not committing any contravention of provisions of question however is whether the respondent acted or intended to act any provisions of Act - Argument was that respondent acted provisions of in taking overtime work from workers and that was therefore entailed to protection - We are unable to accept this argument - Does not deal with question as to when an occupier or manager of a factory can require or allow a worker to work in factory otherwise in accordance with notice of periods of work displayed in factory or take overtime work from the worker - Deals only with question of payment of extra wages to a worker who works in a factory for more than nine hours a day or for more than forty-eight hours a week - It cannot therefore be said that in requiring or allowing workers to work than periods of work specified notice respondent acted or intended to act respondent required or allowed workers to work - Appeals allowed.
( 1 ) THESE three appeals involve common questions and will therefore be disposed of by a single judgment. The facts involved in the appeals are identical and it will therefore be convenient to set out the facts of only one of the appeals namely Criminal Appeal No. 212
( 2 ) THE respondent is the Manager of Shree Digvijay Woollen Mills Ltd. Jamnagar. The factory of the company is situate in Jamnagar and is governed by the provisions of the Factories Act 1948 It is common ground that at the material time a notice of periods of work for adults was displayed and correctly maintained in the factory of the Company as required by section 61. The notice showed 7 00 A. M. to 11. 00 A. M. and 11. 30 A. M. to 3. 30 P. M. as the periods of work for adults working in the first shift. The complainant who is the Inspector of Factories received a letter dated 8/06/1959 from the Joint Secretary Digvijay Woollen Mills Kamdar Mandal pointing out inter alia that though the time of work of the workers working in the first shift in the factory of the company was from 7. 00 A M. to 3. 30 P M. one hours more work was being taken from the workers in the combing department every day and that work at the rate of nine hours per day was thus being taken from the workers resulting in 54 hours work per week instead of 48 hours work. On receipt of this information from the Joint Secretary of the Digvijay Woollen Mills Kamdar Mandal the Inspector of Factories addressed a letter dated 10/06/1959 to the respondent requesting the respondent to explain why the workers working in the combing department of the Factory of the Company were made to work for nine hours per day and 54 hours per week daring the period 20/04/1959 to 31/05/1959. It appears from the evidence that the Inspector of Factories visited the factory of the Company on 28/06/1959 and found that three workers employed in the factory of the Company namely Hari Raghunath Himatsingh Meghubhai and Chhagan Badha had worked overtime from 3. 30 P. M to 4. 30 P M. on various dates in the month of May 1959. The Inspector of factories thereafter received a letter dated 30/06/1959 from the respondent in which the respondent pointed out to the Inspector of Factories the circumstances in which the workers employed in the combing department had worked overtime. It was pointed out by the respondent that overtime work had been taken from the workers in the combing department owing to exceptional circumstances which arose by reason of delay in the arrival of stocks of dyed tops imported from British Isles and that if overtime work had not been taken from the workers working in the combing department it would not have been possible to keep the factory working and that would have adversely affected the working of both the spinning and weaving departments and consequently the working of other departments. The respondent explained that for the overtime work taken from the workers employed in the combing department extra wages had been paid in accordance with the provisions of section 59 and that the respondent was under the bona fide impression that if extra wages were paid as required by section 59 there was no legal bar against taking of overtime work from the workers and it was under that bona fide impression that the respondent had taken overtime work from the workers employed in the combing department these facts would not have been ordinarily relevant and we would not have set out the same in detail but an argument has been advanced by Mr. Patwari the learned advocate on behalf of the respondent which is founded on the premise that the respondent acted bona fide in taking overtime work from the workers and it is therefore necessary to set out these facts in order to appreciate the argument urged by Mr. Patwari. It appears that the Inspector of Factories again visited the factory of the Company on 15/09/1959. A complaint was ultimately filed by the Inspector of Factories against the respondent on 17
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
