Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Shrikant Madhav Vaidya, s/o Madhav Damodar Vaidya - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr.M.P. No. 942 of 2023
Decided On : 13-09-2023
Factories Act - Offences - Sections 92, 96A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of Sections 92 and 96A of the Factories Act, 1948, and their interpretation in the context of the definition of 'factory' under Section 2(m) of the Act. The judgment highlighted the requirement of a manufacturing process for an organization to be considered a 'factory' and the absence of vicarious liability under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a director of a public sector undertaking, was accused of offences under the Factories Act, 1948 for unsafe work practices resulting in injuries to workers. The petitioner challenged the order taking cognizance of the offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the organization did not meet the definition of a 'factory' as no manufacturing process was being carried out at the time of the alleged offences. It also held that the petitioner, as a director, lacked personal involvement or knowledge of the alleged acts, and there was no provision for vicarious liability under the Factories Act, 1948.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of Sections 92 and 96A of the Factories Act, 1948, the definition of 'factory' under Section 2(m), and the liability of the petitioner as a director.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of a manufacturing process at the organization, lack of personal involvement or knowledge on the part of the petitioner, and the absence of vicarious liability under the Factories Act, 1948.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the order taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner, holding it to be an abuse of process of law.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the parties.
2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 3166 of 2022 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 92 and 96A of the Factories Act, 1948 inter alia against the petitioner, who is the Chairman-cum-non-Executive Director of Hindustan Uvarak Rasayan Limited (HURL), Jharia- cum- Jharpokhar- cum- Sindri which is a public sector undertaking of Government of India.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner being the director of the said company; in an unsafe manner, without personal protective equipment was getting the works done in the said Hindustan Uvarak Rasayan Limited (HURL), Sindri, Dhanbad due to which on 10.01.2022; while conducting the stability test of the Transformer, because of flash over in the main substation panel, during the work, two workers respectively Shri Ashish Kumar Mandal and Shri Mathavan V, got scorched. It is further alleged that the work was executed in an unsafe manner without personal protective equipment in violation of Section 7A of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 55A of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 and the information about the accident has not been duly given by the factory management in Form No. 17A. It is also alleged that the failure to report the accident in Form No. 17A is in violation of Section 88 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 96 of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 even though Hindustan Uvarak Rasayan Limited (HURL) is a factory as defined in Section 2 (m) (1) of the Factories Act, 1948. There is also allegation that various processes relating to production were found operationalized in the factory and required fees were not deposited and the unit is a hazardous factory as per Section 2 (c)(b) of the Factories Act, 1948 and the petitioner has not got the factory plan approved; in violation of Section 3 of the Jharkhand Factories Rules and the factory was operated without registration in violation of Section 6 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 4, 5 and 10 of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950. There is also allegation that in the occupational health center located in the factory, no physicians was appointed as per the required provision of law and only one physician was employed on contractual basis who is not qualified as per Rule 62-OH(2) of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 and non-appointment of required number of physicians with due qualification in hazardous factory as per the laid down provision is in violation of Rule 62-OH 1 (C) and 62-OH (2) of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950. There is further allegation that pre-employment medical examination was not being done in the factory which is in violation of Rule 62 NH(1) & (2) of Jharkhand Factories Rule, 1950.
4. Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to page no. 55 of the brief submits that it has been mentioned therein that “urea was to be produced” in the Hindustan Uvarak Rasayan Limited (HURL) which indicates that on the alleged date of occurrence, no manufacturing process was carried out within the premises of Hindustan Uvarak Rasayan Limited (HURL). Drawing attention of this Court to the definition of factory, Section 2 (m) of Factories Act, 1948 which reads as under:-
(m) “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 p
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a manufacturing process for an organization to be considered a 'factory' under the Factories Act, 1948, and the absence of vi....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a manufacturing process for an organization to be considered a 'factory' under the Factories Act, and the absence of vicariou....
Directors are not liable for offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, and related sections and rules.
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....
It is well settled that at stage of issuing process, Magistrate is mainly concerned with allegations made in complaint or evidence led in support of same and Magistrate is only to be satisfied that t....
The complaints were an abuse of process of court, as there was no violation of law and rules and regulations, and the complaints were filed belatedly. The non-mention of the show cause notice and its....
The court held that only one director of a company can be prosecuted for violations under specific sections of the Factories Act, affirming a strict interpretation of legislative intent.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to safety regulations in factories, clarifying the applicability of the Factories Act even with fewer than ten workers, and addressing procedural errors....
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
