N.K. Balakrishnan, J.

All these Crl.M.Cs are filed by the Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority and the Superintending Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, P.H. Circle, Moovattupuzha. The second respondent, Inspector of Factories & Boilers filed the complaints against the petitioners mentioned above alleging violation of the provisions of the Factories Act and the Kerala Factories Rules.

(i) Whether Kerala Water Authority is a factory as defined under Section 2(m) of the Factories Act?

(ii) Whether Kerala Water Authority is a 'Local Authority' within the meaning of Section 7A of the Factories Act, or, whether Kerala Water Authority is to be treated only as a company, in which case, can A1- being the Managing Director escape from the criminal liability?

(iii) Whether the Managing Director of Kerala Water Authority is the 'occupier' of the Factory within the meaning of Section 2(n) of the Factories Act?

These are the pertinent questions that fall for consideration in these petitions.

2. Kerala Water Authority is a statutory autonomous body constituted under the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerages Act for the distribution and supply of water and removal of waste materials and matters connected therewith. Five complaints were filed by the 2nd respondent contending that the first petitioner who is the Managing Director of Kerala Water Authority is the "occupier" and the 2nd petitioner Superintending Engineer is the Manager of Water Treatment Plant, Thodupuzha and as such they are liable to be punished for the violations mentioned in the complaint.

3. In Crl.M.C. 1725/2007 it is alleged that the petitioners violated Section 7 (a) of Factories Act and Rule 81 (b) of Kerala Factories Rules. The allegation is that the petitioners failed to ensure the health and safety of the workers by providing adequate instructions, necessary training and supervision and as a result of the same an accident occurred resulting in chlorine leakage. It was stated that there was a bursting of P.V.C. pipe which connected the tonner and chlorinator at about 2.15 p.m. on 7-11-2006 at the Water Treatment Plant, Thodupuzha, which according to the complainant is in the ultimate control of the Managing Director, the first accused.

4. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent along with the Joint Inspector of Factories visited the premises of the water treatment plant on 9-11-2006 and conducted inspection. The 2nd accused, the Superintending Engineer was also there at the premises. It was alleged that the 2nd petitioner, the Superintending Engineer threatened the 2nd respondent/complainant. Violations of the Act and Rules are mentioned in the different complaints filed by the 2nd respondent as S.T. 72/2007, 73/2007 and 74/2007. The complaints were filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thodupuzha.

5. It is submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the first petitioner Managing Director of Kerala Water Authority is not the occupier and the 2nd respondent/Superintending Engineer is not the manager and as such the cognizance taken against these petitioners are liable to be quashed invoking the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6. To understand the rival contentions advanced by the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, the relevant provisions of the Factories Act, Factories Rules and the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerages Act have to be gone into. Section 2 (m) of the Factories Act defines "factory": as:

"Factory" means any premises including the precincts thereof -

(i) whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on, or

(ii) whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of powe