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

2014 Supreme(Jhk) 833

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
Subas Kumar & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Inspector of Factories, Ranchi & Anr. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 2441 of 2014
Decided On : 13.08.2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. H.C. Prasad.
For Respondents: Mr. Saket Upadhyay.

Headnote:Bihar Factories Rules, 1950---Rule 2-A—Factories Act, 1948---Section 2(ca)—For purpose of cancellation of competency certificate Rules does not contemplate personal hearing to person before cancelling competency certificate—When petitioners were issued show cause and they replied thereto, that is sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice---Order of cancellation is unassailable.

Order

The petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 22.04.2014.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners were granted competency certificate vide order dated 31.12.2012 for a period between 01.01.2013 and 31.12.2015. The petitioners are aggrieved by issuance of order dated 22.04.2014 whereby the competency certificate dated 31.12.2012 has been revoked.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that without affording an opportunity of hearing and without disclosing any cogent reason, the competency certificate dated 31.12.2012 has been revoked by the Chief Inspector of Factories, Jharkhand which cannot sustain the scrutiny of law. Referring to order dated 31.12.2012 (Annexure5), the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the conditions for grant of certificate has been enumerated in the said letter however, order dated 22.04.2014 does not disclose that the petitioners have violated any of the conditions mentioned in order dated 31.12.2012. It is further submitted that the order dated 22.04.2014 has been issued on an allegation that the petitioners have not submitted the requisite reports whereas, it is a matter of record that on 24.01.2014 vide Annexure9/A and Annexure9/B, the reports were submitted by the petitioners and were duly accepted in the office of Chief Factories Inspector, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure9/C wherein the details of the work given to the petitioners have been detailed. On these grounds, it is submitted that order dated 22.04.2014 is arbitrary and it is liable to be quashed.

5. Mr. Saket Upadhyay, J.C. to A.A.G. appearing for the Respondent-State has submitted that before issuing order dated 22.04.2014 a show-cause notice dated 05.02.2014 was issued to the petitioners and since the response of the petitioners was not satisfactory vide order dated 22.04.2014, the competency certificate granted vide order dated 31.12.2012 has been revoked. It is further submitted that since a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners, there is no requirement in law to give personal hearing to the petitioners before passing the impugned order dated 22.04.2014.

6. From the materials on record, it appears that the petitioners were granted competency certificate vide order dated 31.12.2012 and one of the conditions of the certificate is, “Tests examinations and inspections shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Factories Act and Jharkhand Factories Rules”. The petitioners were issued show-cause notice dated 05.02.2014 stating that since last several years they have not been producing the test reports in the office of the Chief Inspector of Factories. The conditions of the certificate were not being complied with by the petitioners. The petitioners responded to the letter dated 05.02.2014 vide their response dated 24.02.2014 which simply states as under:

“Please refer to your letter dated 05.02.2014 vide which has directed me to explain about my competency. Sir competency granted me on 01.01.2013 & the condition maintain in clause has already been furnished by me.”

7. A perusal of Rule 2A of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950 which was adopted by the State of Jharkhand is extracted below:

4. “The Chief Inspector, if he has reason to believe that 'competent person'

(a) has violated any condition stipulated in the certificate of competency;

(b) has carried out a test, examination and inspection or has acted in manner inconsistent with the intent or the purpose of this Act or the Rules made thereunder, or has omitted to act as required under the Act or Rules made thereunder;

(c) for any other reason to the recorded in writing; may revoke the certificate of competency after giving an opportunity to the 'competent person' for being heard”.

8. The Rule under the Bihar Factori



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 Back to top