Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Navneet Kumar, J.
Dhirendra Kumar and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Anr. - Opposite Parties
Cr. M.P. No.2692 of 2012 with I.A. No.928 of 2022
Decided On : 23-03-2022
Occupier - Factories (Amendment) Act - Section 2(n), Section 92 - The court discussed the definition of 'Occupier' under Section 2(n) of the Factories Act and the General Penalty for Offences under Section 92 of the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987. The court found that the Chief General Manager was not the Occupier or Manager for the purpose of the offence punishable under Section 92, while the factory manager was held liable. The court quashed the criminal proceeding against the Chief General Manager and allowed the petition with respect to him, but dismissed the petition with respect to the factory manager.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an accident in a factory premises, leading to a complaint under Section 92 of the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987 against the Chief General Manager and the factory manager.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Chief General Manager was not the Occupier or Manager for the purpose of the offence punishable under Section 92, while the factory manager was held liable.
Issues: The main issue was the liability of the Chief General Manager and the factory manager under Section 92 of the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Chief General Manager was not liable as the Occupier or Manager, while the factory manager was found to be liable under Section 92 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal proceeding against the Chief General Manager and allowed the petition with respect to him, but dismissed the petition with respect to the factory manager.
JUDGMENT :
1. The case was heard through video conferencing. None of the parties found any flaws with audibility/visibility during the course of hearing the matter.
2. This Cr.M.P. is directed against the order taking cognizance dated 27.10.2011 for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987 pending in the concerned court of Sri S.K. Dubey, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad or his successor.
3. Heard Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP Mr. Ravi Prakash appearing on behalf of the State.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the allegation has been made by the opposite parties against the petitioners that on 5.08.2011, an accident took place within the factory premises at Unit No. 13, when the left hand of Sri Murari Singh, Mechanical fitter was caught in between the running tandem drum and conveyor belt causing serious injury to the left hand and middle finger of the right hand and thereafter an enquiry was conducted and finally an enquiry report dated 06.09.2011 was issued to all the concerned vide memo No.119 dated 07.09.2011 and the said enquiry report revealed that the position of tandem drum of conveyor belt No.13 was such that it was unsafe for the worker/workers, working on or near Unit No.13, the drum was not guarded or fenced since long and the factory management was allowing the drum to run in an unsafe condition, i.e. without providing and maintaining a suitable safeguard or fenced over this drum, as a result of which, the accident took place. It has also been stated in the said enquiry report that the accident could have been averted, had the tender drum been securely fenced by safeguard and had it been constantly maintained and kept in a position while it is in motion or in use and the management could also have averted by preparing a safe work procedure for alignment of the conveyor belt by making it known to the concede worker by imparting special training.
5. It has further been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that on the basis of the complaint dated 27.10.2011; the concerned court below took the cognizance in a mechanical manner under Section 92 of the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987 against three accused persons including these two petitioners. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the learned court below has totally ignored the definition of ‘Occupier’ of the factory in order to invoke the offence against these two petitioners as defined under Section 2(n) of the Factories Act.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel APP appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the materials available on the record.
8. In order to appreciate as to whether prima-facie case made out against the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 92 of the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987, it is necessary to go through the contents of section 92 and section 2(n) of the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987 which run as under :
Section 2(n) of the Factories Act says
(i) In the case of a firm or other association of individuals, any one of the individual partners or members thereof shall be deemed to be the occupier.
(ii) In the case of a company any one of the Directors shall be deemed to be the Occupier.
(iii) In the case of a factory owned or controlled by the Central Government or any State Government or any local authority the person or persons appointed to manage the affairs of the factory by the Central Government, the State Government or the local authority, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the occupier.
Section 92 of the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987 defines the General Penalty for the Offences which run as under:
Liability under Section 92 of the Factories (Amendment) Act, 1987 is determined based on the definition of 'Occupier' and 'Manager' as per Section 2(n) of the Act.
Directors are not liable for offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, and related sections and rules.
Directors exercising ultimate control over a factory are deemed occupiers and are strictly liable for failing to implement mandatory safety measures or for operating machinery without statutory appro....
The interpretation and application of relevant sections of the Factories Act, particularly Sections 97 and 111, are crucial in determining liability for workplace accidents.
The court highlighted the importance of considering the obligations of workers and the liability of the occupier and manager under the Factories Act before initiating criminal proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act is invoked only when the manufacturing process in the factory has commenced.
The main legal point established is that the Director and Manager cannot be held responsible for an accident without evidence of their involvement, and key provisions of the Factories Act must be con....
Point of law : If an order is not obligatory to be passed under the statute, no appeal would lie against the offence alleged under Section 7A(2)(c) of the Factories Act as is alleged in the case at h....
Mens rea is not a necessity in invoking the provisions of the Factories Act.
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
