IMPORTANT POINT
The interpretation and application of relevant sections of the Factories Act, particularly Sections 97 and 111, are crucial in determining liability for workplace accidents.

JUDGMENT :

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner no.1 has left for his heavenly abode. He submits that now the petition survives only for petitioner no.2.

2. In view of such submission, let name of petitioner no.1 be deleted from the array of the petitioners.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection C/2 Case No.366 of 1998 including the order dated 08.06.2015 whereby the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 for violation of Section 32(C) of the Factories Act read with Rule 55 of the Bihar Factories Rule, 1950, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

4. The case was lodged on application of O.P.No.2 alleging therein that on 13.4.1998 the O.P.No.2 filed a complaint case in court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, against the petitioners and one another accused alleging commission of offence under section 92 of Factories Act 1948. That on 13.10.1998 the deceased was engaged by contractor of M/s Tata Iron and Steel Works Company and while working at Ammonia Distillation Unit of bye product plant at coke oven fell from a height of 32.5 mtrs and died at the site as a result of serious injuries. Inquiry was conducted and in the said inquiry statement of four persons were recorded. These persons were also employed by M/s Steward and Llyod Ltd. The complainant in his report opined that in said accident death of deceased took place as a result of violation of section 32(c) of the Act and Rule 55 (c) (1) of Bihar Factories Rules, 1950.

5. Mr. Sinha the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in Miscellaneous Case No.8903 of 1999 and by order dated 08.07.2014 the order taking cognizance was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the learned court to pass a fresh order and in pursuant to that the present cognizance order is passed. He submits that the Factory Inspector has instituted as many as 11 cases against the officials of Tata Steel Company Limited. He submits that lodging 11 cases itself suggest that filing of the case against the company and the officers is malafide. He submits that the allegation is made in the complaint that securing the safety by fencing was not provided. He submits that in the enquiry also it has come that the workman himself has removed it and that is why occurrence has taken place and to buttress his argument he draws the attention of the Court to the statement of co-worker during enquiry contained at page 42 onwards and relevant at page 46. On this ground, he submits that the entire proceeding may kindly be quashed.

6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the contents of the complaint case as well as the order taking cognizance. Admittedly occurrence took place in factory premises and co-workman has also admitted in statement that safety equipment has been supplied to him. Prima facie it appears that this is not a case that the management has not provided safety equipment to the workman. To fasten liability upon the management one is also required to look into sections 97 and 111 of Factory Act, 1948 and there are certain obligation cast upon the worker also and the safety equipment has been supplied by the management and not taking advantage of the same, the workman is also liable under section 97 and 111 of the said Act. For ready reference sections 97 and 111 of the said Act are quoted below:

“97. Offences by workers.— (1) Subject to the provisions of section 111, if any worker employed in a factory contravenes any provision of this Act or any rules or orders made thereunder, imposing any duty or liability on workers, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to 1[five hundred rupees]. (2) Where a worker is convicted of an offence punishable under sub-section (1) the occupier or manager of the factory shall