IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Amitabh the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Pradhan the learned State counsel.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with No. G-80/13 as well as order taking cognizance dated 16.7.2013, pending in the court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.

3. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that on 23.4.2013 at 11.30 p.m. an accident took place in which one Bishu Mahto died. After completion his shift while returning to house, he was crossing Magnetic Over Head Crane then suddenly hot pig iron fell down on his chest and he died on spot. It is alleged that occupier and manager had failed to ensure provisions for maintenance of plant and system of work in the factory thereby violating section 7-A(2)(c) & (d) of Factories Act 1948 and Rules 55-A (2) of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950.

4. Mr. Amitabh the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are the occupier and manager of Bihar Foundry and Casting Limited and they have been made accused in this petition. He submits that accident took place in the factory premises as one hot pig iron fell down on the chest of contract labourer namely Bishnu Mahto from the magnetic crane and he died on the spot. He submits that is why by way of making allegation that proper safety measure was not provided by the company thus, these petitioners have been made accused for violating the said provisions under the said rules of the Factories Rules. He further submits that there is no averment that these petitioners are responsible for such negligence and the company is not made the party. He submits that in absence of the company being made the party vicarious liability cannot be fastened against these petitioners who are the officials of the company. He submits that Rupees Four Lacs has been paid to the family members of the deceased. 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 inquiry was required to be looked into in the light of Sections 97 and 111 of the Factories Act.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Sarav Investment and Financial Consultancy (P) Ltd. vs. Lloyds Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund, (2007) 14 SCC 753 and also in the case of Visitor AMU and Others vs. K.S. Misra, (2007) 8 SCC 593, wherein in Para-13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

“13. The problem can be looked from another angle. If the view taken by the High Court that the provision is directory is accepted as correct, it would in effect amount to making the provisions of sub-clause (c) of Statute 61(6)(iv) otiose. In such a case the consequences provided therein that if no option is exercised within the prescribed time limit, the employee shall be deemed to have opted for the retention of the benefits already received by him would never come into play. It is well settled principle of interpretation of statute that it is incumbent upon the Court to avoid a construction, if reasonably permissible on the language, which will render a part of the statute devoid of any meaning or application. The Courts always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intent is that every part of the statute should have effect. The legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the Legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the staute. [See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh Ninth Edi