Mens rea is not a necessity in invoking the provisions of the Factories Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. In both the petitions common question of law and similar complaint as well as cognizance order are under challenge that is why both the petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties.

2. Both the petitions have been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with G.O. No. 190 of 2013 including order taking cognizance dated 28.09.2013, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Saraikella.

3. Heard Mr. A..K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Shweta Singh and Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla learned counsels of the State.

4. O.P. No. 2 instituted a complaint stating therein that M/s Tayo Rolls Limited has its Factory, which is registered under the Factories Act at Large Scale Industrial Estate, Gamharia. On 4.7.2013, a natural death of a contract worker namely Mathura Mandal took place. On enquiry, it was found that late Mathura Mandal was a Supply Labour working in M/s Tayo Rolls Limited. On the date of accident i.e. on 4.7.2013 after coming to duty he started working at his work place i.e. Laddle Refining Furnace Vacuum Degassing Area. Where he was working along with another worker Shri Deva Mukhi and they were engaged in loading, unloading At about 6.15 P.M. in the evening. Deva Mukhi went from loading place to unloading place and Mathura Mandal stayed back in the loading area. During enquiry it revealed that there were three cranes established in the foundry shed one having capacity of 40 tones and in the western side of the foundry shed, there is a furnace slag dump area where the sack of lime is loaded and unloaded with the help of Crane. It further revealed that the said work was under the supervision of Nilkamal Mahto. At about 6.20 P.M. a Dumper loaded with riser cutting entered into the foundry shed for the purpose of unloading and while the Dumper was coming in the back side, late Mathura Mandal got trapped in the Dumper, due to which he suffered injury on the left part of the body and became semi unconscious. He was thereafter taken to Tata Main Hospital where he was declared dead at 7.40 P.M.

It has been alleged that the vehicle was running in the reverse mode and during the said operation, the said worker got trapped in the vehicle and suffered injury which resulted into the death. While the vehicle was coming in reverse direction, there was no Flag Man or Safety Watcher and there was no standard operating procedure, otherwise the accident could have been prevented and therefore it has been alleged that there is a violation of Section 7 A (2) (b) of the Factories Act, read with Section 55 A (2) of the Jharkhand Factory Rules, 1950, for which the Manager and Occupier is liable to be prosecuted.

5. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the complaint has been filed in violation of Rule 55(A)(2) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Factories Rules, 1950. He submits that there is no casualty and only injury has taken place. He further submits that the petitioners are the Occupier and Manager of M/s Tata Steel Ltd. He also submits that he is not challenging the provisions of the Factories Act, rather he has very fairly invited the attention of this Court to the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Industries Ltd. Versus Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 665. He submits that though, this judgment is against the petitioner, however, in this judgment the challenge was with regard to certain provisions of the Factories Act, which requires to be looked into its entirety in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners are liable for such irregularities or not. Learned counsel also draws the attention of this Court towards Rule 55(A)(2) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Factories Rules, 1950 and he also draws the attention of this Court towards Sections 97 and 111 of the Factories Act and by way of referring aforesaid sections, he submits that the liability and inqui