Quashing petitions dismissed.

1. The complainant is the same in all the petitions. Common question of law is raised. The same counsel is appearing for all the petitioners. Hence, the matter is disposed of by a common order as under.

2. A complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioners under the Factories Act. The complaint in C.C.No.49 of 1996 Crl.O.P. No.10776 of 1998 is that there are only four stretchers available in the Factory of the petitioner, whereas according to Sec.87Rule 95 Schedule XXIV Clause 12 (A) of the Factories Act of 1948, there must be 4 stretchers for every 20 workers. Thus, there is contravention of Factories Act, which is liable to be punished under Sec.92 of the Factories Act.

3. The gist of the complaint in C.C.No.48 of 1996 (Crl.O.RNo.10767 of 1998) is as follows: The minimum height of creche has not been raised to 3.7 metres at eves. Suitable open air play ground not provided. Adjoining the creche, a suitable wash room is not provided. The construction of creche does not conform to all the standards prescribed in Rules 73 of 76 of Tamil Nadu Factories Act of 1960. The height at eves of the paste preparation shed and mud filling shed is less than 3 metres from the floor level. Below the jelly work and ventilator, windows of size 0-91 × 1 -52 metre, are not provided in the creche. The windows and doors shall be such as they shall be open from outside. The canteen and rest room are not provided with all amenities. The accused has committed contravention of the relevant Rules and guilty under Sec.92 of the Factories Act.

4. In C.C.No.47 of 1996 (Crl.O.P.No. 10768 of 1998) the allegation is that in the creche, washing room and toilet facilities are not provided and thus there is contravention of Rules, and hence, the accused is liable to be punished under Sec.92 of the Factories Act.

5. The case in C.C.No.41 of 1996 (Crl.O.P. No.10769 of 1998), is as follows:

On the date of inspection of the factory premises, more than 66 persons are employed in the process of manufacture of fire crackers, without employment of horse power, which is contravention of Rules. A creche is not maintained for the children of the women workers. Thus, the accused has committed contravention of Rules. Punishable under Sec.92 of Factories Act.

6. As regards C.C.No.51 of 1996 (Crl.O.P. No. 10770 of 1998), it is stated that the mixing shed is not situate at a distance of 30.5 meters away from the factory. The distance between gun powder mixing shed and Aluminium powder mixing shed is only 19.125 metres. The distance between the gun powder mixing shed and the nearest shed is 29.325 metres. In the office room, the wiring has not been made in conduit type. One of the wires leading from the pedestal fan is hanging loose and there is no plug provided to the same. The women workers in the Factory were wearing nylon sarees at the time of inspection. Thus, there has been contravention of Rules, for which the accused is liable to be punished under Sec.92 of the Factories Act.

7. As regards C.C.No.50 of 1996 (Crl.O.P. No. 10771 of 1998), the allegation is to the following effect:

The workers employed in the factory excepting mixing and billing section have not been provided with asbestos aprons and contrary to the Regulations, it was found that dealwood boxes with nails were found used in the factory. Besides metal drums and eversilver tiffin boxes were found in some of the sheds. The doors in the sheds were not found situated in opposite to each other in shed Nos.50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 59. As regards the sheds near the factory, the doors of the sheds shall not situate opposite to each other. But it was not in Shed Nos.4, 5, 12, 13, 20 and 21. Thus, there was contravention of Rules punishable under Sec.92 of the Factories Act.

8. It is alleged in C.C.No.52 of 1996 (Crl.O.P. No. 10772 of 98) that there is only one First Aid Box found in the Factorys Office room whereas there should be at least two first aid boxes. Form No.15 has not been provided