JUDGMENT

Rafique, J. - This is an application in revision from the conviction of the applicant u/s 41(a) of the Indian Factories Act (XII of 1911), sentencing: the applicant to pay Rs. 10, The facts which gave rise to the precaution of the applicant are as follows: The applicant is the proprietor of a factory known as Juggi Lal Kimalpat Ginning and Pressing Mills in cancer, Of the 10th of July 1920 the Inspector of Factories issued a Circular letter to the factories in the Province in the following words:

Sir, I have the honour to ask you to please note that no permission can be given this season to any cotton Ginning & Pressing Factory in which women are employed to work more than 11 hours a day.

2. On the 13th November 1920 the applicant started night work on his Ginning and Cotton Pressing Factory. On the 16th November 1920 ha wrote a letter to the lnspector of Factories to the following effect

Sir, We have the honour to inform you that Messrs, Juggi Lal Kamalpat's Ginning and Pressing Factory, Cawnpore, kept by us, is working at night also from Saturday, the 13th instant, on an extra double shift of labour.

3. On the 18th November 1920 the Inspector of Factories replied as follows:

Sir, With reference to your letter of the 15th November 1920 I have the honour to point out that women are not to be worked at night. They should not be employed before 6.30 A.M. or after 8 P.M.

4. The applicant, it appears, ignored the instructions of the inspector of Factories and continued working his factory both day and night, employing women on the night shifts. The present precaution was started at the instance of the Inspector of Factories. He took up the position that no factory could employ women at night without his permission. Presumably, he was of that opinion on the basis of the provisions of Sections 26 and 27 of Act XII of 1911. Section 21 is as follows:

With respect to the employment of women in factories the following provisions shall apply:

(a) no woman shall be employed in any factory before half-pact five O'clock in the morning or after seven o'clock in the evening (6) no woman shall be employed in any factory for more than 11 hours in one day.

5. Section 27 is to the following effect:

Nothing in Section 24 or in Section 26 shall apply to any woman in any factory for ginning or pressing cotton, in which such number of women are employed as are, in the coition of the Inspector of Factories, sufficient to make the hours of employment of each woman not more than eleven in any one day.

6. Both the Courts below agreed with the contention of the Inspector of Factories and thought that the applicant had no right to employ woman on the night shifts in fact of the warning to him by the Inspector of Factories by his letter, dated the 18th November 1920. The applicant was, therefore, convicted and fined Rs. 10.

7. It is contended on behalf of the applicant before this Court that the conviction is bad in law. Both the Inspector of Factories and the Courts below have misunderstood the provisions of sections 24 and 27 of the Factories Act. It is true that, u/s 24, a woman cannot be employed before half-pact five in the morning and after seven in the evening, and that u/s 27 the Inspector of Factories is authorized to express an opinion with regard to the employment of women in a Ginning Factory, but his opinion is to be given as to the sufficiency of the staff of women working in such factory. u/s 27 the provisions of sections 24 and 26 of the Act may be rendered inoperative, provided the Inspector of Factories is of opinion that there is no risk that a woman would be likely to work more than 11 hours a day. In case the Inspector is of opinion that there is much a risk, the Manager working women in such prohibited hours is not protected. The Inspector expressed no opinion as to the sufficiency of the staff. His opinion apparently was that no woman should be allowed to work at night, whether the staff was sufficient or insufficient. In my opinion, the