Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Shrikant Madhav Vaidya, s/o Madhav Damodar Vaidya - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Opposite Party
Cr.M.P. No. 939 of 2023
Decided On : 15-05-2023
Factories Act - Cognizance - Sections 92, 96A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of Sections 92 and 96A of the Factories Act, 1948, and the definition of 'factory' under Section 2(m) of the Act. The judgment highlighted the interpretation of the term 'factory' and the requirement of a manufacturing process for an organization to be considered a factory. The court also emphasized the absence of specific allegations and the lack of vicarious liability provisions in the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a director of a company, sought to quash the order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 92 and 96A of the Factories Act, 1948, related to a workplace accident. The petitioner argued that the organization did not qualify as a 'factory' as no manufacturing process was being carried out at the time of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the organization did not meet the definition of a 'factory' under the Factories Act, and the petitioner, as a director, lacked personal involvement or knowledge of the alleged acts. The court held that the orders taking cognizance and issuing a warrant against the petitioner were not sustainable in law and amounted to an abuse of process.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of Sections 92 and 96A of the Factories Act, the definition of 'factory,' the liability of the petitioner as a director, and the sufficiency of allegations in the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of a manufacturing process at the organization, the lack of personal involvement or knowledge of the petitioner, and the absence of specific allegations and vicarious liability provisions in the Factories Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the orders taking cognizance of the offences and issuing a warrant against the petitioner, allowing the criminal miscellaneous petition.
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 23.06.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. 6445 of 2022 by which the learned 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 and subsequent order dated 08.10.2022 in which learned Magistrate directed the office clerk to issue bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner even though service report of summon issued to the petitioner had not been returned.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner being the director of the said company was responsible for the valves of the plant being not inspected regularly as per the Bihar Factory Rules, 1950 by the competent person declared as such and in unsafe manner and because of which on 25.03.2022 a workman namely Raju Vishwakarma who was working in the platform of gas turbine generator -2 for installing canopy died to the injuries he received from the detached pipe of the vent line. There is also allegation against the petitioner that management of the factory did not inform about the accident in format being form no. 17 A and did not provide the information of the accident in the format in violation of Rule 88 read with Rule 96 of Bihar Factories Rules, 1950 even though M/s. Hindustan Uvarak Rasayan Limited (HURL) is a hazardous factory as per Section 2 (c) (b) of the Factories Act, 1948. There is also allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner did not do the pre-employment medical examination of the workmen and for the said violations the occupier and the factory manager are equally responsible as per Section 92 and 96A of the Factories Act, 1948.
4. Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner by drawing attention of this Court to page no. 54 of the brief submits that the 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 part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on,—
but does not include a mine subject to the operation of [the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952)], or [a mobile unit belonging to the armed forces of the Union, a railway running shed or a hotel, restaurant or eating place];
[Explanation [I].—For computing the number of workers for the purposes of this clause all the workers in different groups and relays] in a day shall be taken into account;]
[Explanation II.—For the purposes of this clause, the mere fact that an Electronic Data Processing Unit or a Computer Unit is installed in any premises or part thereof, shall not be construed to make it a factory if no manufacturing process is being carried on in such premises or part thereof;].”
It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that for an organization to come under the ambit of factory carrying on of manufacturin
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....
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....
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.
Provision of Section 92 of Factories Act, it is clear that Factories Act is not a part of general penalty law but arise out of a breach of a duty provided in it - Offence punishable under Factories A....
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
