IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of judicial interpretation in avoiding constructions that render statutory provisions devoid of meaning or application.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Salona Mittal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Shukla, the learned counsel for the respondent State including the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 12.12.2013 and also the entire criminal proceeding in G.O. (Complaint) Case No. 251 of 2013, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella.

3. The brief facts of the complaint case alleging therein that BMC Metal Cast Pvt. Ltd. is having factory situated at A-18 and 19, Adityapur Industrial Area at Saraikella Kharsawa and registered vide registration no. 24270/SBM and at the time of renewal of license at Form no. 2 the petitioner is one of the Director and another one Manager of the said factory. On 23.9.2013 one employee namely Tunna Tin met with an accident and got injury at the time of working and then he was admitted APEX hospital Baradwari, Jamshedpur. On receiving of information of accident the complainant inspected the factory premises on 24.9.2013 for finding out reasons of accident. One another person namely Bharat Shyamal Supervisor of said factory stated the occurrence to the complainant. The complainant taken fardbayan on 22.10.2013 regarding accident. During inspection it was found that the said employee has started his duty on 23.9.2013 at 8.00 am and he was changing damaged sheet at the roof and safety bent came down on ground and being unstable he got injury. It was also found that the management of factory has not provided the safety and due to lack of safety measure the victim sustained injury and the management failed to comply the provisions and violated the provisions of section 32(B) and 32(C) of the Factory Act, 1948 and Rule 56(c)(a) of Jharkhand Factory Rule, 1950. On asking by the complainant, the management of the factory did not produce any record and due to this the management violated the provision of Rule 102 of Factory Rules, 1950.

4. Mr. Mittal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the complaint, the learned court has taken cognizance under section 92 of the Factory Act, 1948. He submits that the petitioner no. 1 happens to be Director of the said company/firm. He draws attention of the Court to the enquiry report and submits that the worker has also admitted before the Factory Inspector that he was provided with safety equipment like belt and helmet and inspite of that the case has been lodged. On these grounds, he submits that there is no laches on the part of the management however the case has been lodged.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that accident took place in the premises of factory and on enquiry the case found to be true and that is why case has been lodged and accordingly cognizance has been taken and there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance.

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 workman has also admitted that safety equipment has been supplied to him. Prima facie it appears that this is not a case that the management has not provided safely 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