Prosecution of Central Government employees in factories requires prior sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.

In view of commonality of issues involved, all the four criminal original petitions are considered and decided by this common order.

2. A bird’s eye view of the facts that led to the filing of the present four criminal original petitions is as under:

2.1. While the petitioner in Crl.O.P. Nos.26475 and 26594 of 2025 (Rambhad) is an Occupier in the Heavy Vehicles Factory which is a unit of Armoured Vehicles Nigam Ltd., the petitioner in Crl.O.P.Nos.26438 and 26504 of 2025 (Jay Prakash Singh) is a Manager in the same organisation.

2.2. On 23.08.2023 at 10.00 a.m., on a joint inspection made by the Joint Director and Deputy Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Tiruvallur, it was found that the trenches located in the turret shop, overhaul assembly shop, general assembly shop and forge shop were not securely covered which may cause risk of bodily injury to the workers employed there. It was further found that the floors of the forge shop area were not properly maintained which may lead to workers getting slipped eventually leading to fall injury. Hence, for these alleged offences, the petitioners were charged under Sections 33(1) and 32(a) respectively of the Factories Act, 1948 (for brevity “the Act”) and the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules, 1950 (for brevity “the Rules”).

2.3 Likewise, on the said inspection, it was further found that the horizontal machining centre was not securely fenced in order to protect the safety of the workers employed there. It was also found that all the workers employed in the forge shop and overhaul assembly shop, where the noise level exceeds the maximum permissible exposure levels specified, were not subjected to auditory examination by the certifying surgeon within 14 days of their first employment and were not re-examined at least once in every 12 months. Hence, for these alleged offences, the petitioners were charged under Section 21(1)(iv) (c) of the Act and Section 87 of the Act and Rule 95 Schedule XXVIII Part A Item 3(6)(b) of the Rules, respectively.

2.4 Hence, separate notices dated 11.09.2023 were issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be prosecuted for the alleged irregularities. In response, while Rambhad gave his reply to the show cause notice on 13.10.2023, Jay Prakash Singh gave his reply on 14.10.2023.

2.5 However, not satisfied with their replies, the respondent filed four complaints before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruvallur (for brevity “the Trial Court”), i.e., two separate complaints against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 33(1) and 32(a) of the Act, and two separate complaints against them for the offences under Sections 21(1)(iv)(c) of the Act and Section 87 of the Act and Rule 95 Schedule XXVIII Part A Item 3(6)(b) of the Rules. In each of the complaints, invoking Section 92 of the Act, the petitioners were levied with the minimum fine of Rs.5,000/-.

2.6 While the two complaints filed against Rambhad were taken on file by the Trial Court as C.C. Nos.283 and 284 of 2024, the two complaints filed against Jay Prakash Singh were taken on file by the Trial Court as C.C. Nos.282 and 281 of 2024, respectively.

2.7 The aforesaid four proceedings are put to challenge in the present four criminal original petitions by the two accused.

3. The submissions made by Mr. P.T. Ramkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners are as under:

3.1. As per Section 106 of the A