SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(Guj) 102

P.N.BHAGWATI, N.M.MIABHOY
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
BAIJNATH BALSARAI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: J.R.NANAVATI, P.B.PATVARI

N. M. MIABHOY, J.

( 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 tha


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top