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 reply in the complaints vitiated the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayers: Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the complaint filed by the respondent before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam in S.T.C.Nos.3 & 4 of 2017, and quash the same.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for records of the respondent in respect of the order vide letter No.A/1020/2017, dated 5.10.2017 and quash the same.)

Common Order:

1. Crl.O.P.Nos.6714 & 6826 of 2018 have been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.Nos.3 & 4 of 2017, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Udhagamandalam/trial Court.

2. W.P.No.4529 of 2018 has been filed to quash the order, vide letter No.A/1020/2017, dated 05.10.2017 passed by the 1st respondent.

3. Since the issues in all the three petitions are one and the same, this Court disposes the above petitions, by way of common order.

4. The gist of the case is that the Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Udhagamandalam/respondent in Crl.O.P.Nos.6714 & 6826 of 2018 and 1st respondent in W.P.No.4529 of 2018 conducted an inspection in M/s.Bombay Burmah Trading Company Limited, Crl.O.P.Nos.6714 & 6826 of 2018 and W.P.No.4529 of 2018 Dunsandle Tea Factory, the Nilgiris District (Hereinafter referred to as 'Factory') on 31.07.2017 and issue a show cause notice, dated 28.08.2017 mentioning the following charges:-

(i) No intimation was given to the authorities for change of Occupier during the year 2014-2018. Earlier, one Ashok Panjwani was nominated as Occupier from the year 2014 to 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner was nominated as Occupier to the Factory on 08.02.2016, which was not informed to the Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Udhagamandalam, in due form with necessary fee. Hence, there is violation of Section 6(1)(d) sub Rule 8 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Hereinafter referred to as 'Act').

(ii) On 10.07.2017, one Selvamani, a worker, climbed on the roller machine No.1, which was 9 feet height and was cleaning the bush placed in pressure gap motor without using the movable ladder. The said Selvamani climbed over the pedestal guard, which is 3 ½ feet height and placed his leg on the roller table, which is another 2 ½ feet height. At that time, he got slipped and fell down from 6 feet height, due to which, Crl.O.P.Nos.6714 & 6826 of 2018 and W.P.No.4529 of 2018 he sustained injuries on his back head. This accident was informed to the respondent on the next day on 11.07.2017. Following the same, an inspection was conducted by the Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Udhagamandalam on 31.07.2017 in the Factory. During inspection, it was found that the management failed to provide personal protective equipment to all workers in the factory and failed to provide movable ladder. Hence, there is violation of Sections 7A and 41 Rule 61F of the Factories Act, 1948.

(iii) The Factory without getting approval of change of factory plan, installed nine machineries against the earlier approved plan. Hence, there is violation of Section 6(1) Rule 3(5)(b) and Rule 3(2) of the Act.

(iv) The Factory failed to provide hydrant system to the workers. Hence, they violated Section 38(3) and Section 41 Rule 61(ii)(e) of the Act. Crl.O.P.Nos.6714 & 6826 of 2018 and W.P.No.4529 of 2018 (v)The Factory failed to provide pull chord system for the entire conveyor belt, so that the conveyor belt can be controlled and stopped in case of emergency. Hence, there was violation of Section 21(2) Rule 53 Schedule XI Part A clause 4(2) of the Act.

(vi) Once in 12 months, the conveyor belt to be inspected by the approved person in the Labour Department, who is to examine and certify the conveyor system. In this case, it is not done. Hence, there was violation of Section 21(2) Rule 53 Schedule XI Part A clause 2(8)(C) of the Act.

5. On 05.09.2017, the petitioner sent a reply to the Deputy Director, Indu