The establishment violated Section 92 of the Factories Act, maintaining that it qualified as a factory due to the number of workers and the manufacturing process involved.

O R D E R

The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram and the Additional Sessions Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram, in C.C.No.3247/2013 and Crl.A.No.364/2014, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission of offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (in short, ‘Act’), are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that at an inspection conducted on

24.12.2012 by the Inspector of Factories and Boilers, Grade-I, Thiruvananthapuram, at the unregistered factory under the occupation and control of the petitioners, violations under Rule 74 of the Factories Rules, 1957, and Section 31 of the Act, were detected. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners failed to hydrostatically test the air receiver of the air compressor which is a pressure vessel, by a competent person before taking into use the same. It is further alleged that the petitioners failed to maintain muster roll in Form No.25. According to the complainant, the petitioners did not respond to show cause notice issued to them on 22.01.2013.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the complainant was examined as PW1 and 10 documents were marked as Exts P1 to P10. From the part of the accused, one witness was examined as DW1 and two documents were marked as Exts D1 & D2. It is after the evaluation of the aforesaid evidence that the learned Magistrate found the petitioners guilty of commission of the offence under Section 92 of the Act in connection with the violations mentioned aforesaid. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate sentenced the petitioners to simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.10,000/- each. Though the petitioners challenged the aforesaid verdict before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the learned Additional Session Judge, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioners are here before this Court with this revision.

4. Since there was no representation from the part of the petitioners on consecutive posting dates, notice was issued to them intimating the next posting date and also informing them that the case would be disposed of in their absence, if there is no representation from their part. The aforesaid notices were returned unserved with the endorsements ‘addressee not known’ and ‘addressee left’. In the above circumstances, this Court appointed Adv. Ms. Chithra Chandrasekharan as Amicus Curiae to represent the revision petitioner.

5. Heard the learned Amicus Curiae representing the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. The impugned verdicts of the courts below are challenged by the petitioners on the basis of the contention that their business establishment where the complainant conducted inspection, was not a factory as defined under Section 2 (m) of the Act. It is to be noted that as per (m)(i) of the Act, a premises where 10 or more workers are working could be termed as a factory, if a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power at that premises. As per the definition contained in (k) of the Act, making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing, or otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal could be termed as manufacturing process. The inspection report prepared by the complainant in the case on hand would reveal that