MANEKLAL JINABHAI KOT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the Judgment of the Gujarat High Court, confirming the conviction, by the City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, of the appellant of an offence under S. 92 of the Factories Act 1948 (Act LXIII of 1948) (hereinafter called the Act), for breach of S. 63 of the said Act and cancelling a rule issued by it, to respondents 2 and 3, herein, to show cause against the order of discharge passed by the trial Court.

(2.) The appellant was the Manager of the Saranpur Cotton Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Mill No. 2. The Inspector of Factories, Ahmedabad, found, on a visit to the factory concerned, at 3 a.m., on May 26 1961, certain workers actually working in the stamping department, at that time. According to the register of workers, maintained by the factory, in the form of attendance register, those workers belonged to Group II, Relay II. According to the notice of periods of work, displayed in the factory the period of work for Group II, Relay M was from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., and from 8-30 p.m. to 1-00 a.m. According to the Inspector, the workers concerned were doing work at 3 a.m., on the said date, otherwise than in a accordance with the notice of periods of work displayed in the factory and, entries made in the register of adult workers and, therefore, there has been a contravention of the provisions of S. 63 of the Act, punishable under S. 92 thereof. Inasmush as several workmen were concerned, the Inspector had filed a group of 4 complaints, against the appellant, on August 4, 1961, before the City Magistrate, Ahmedabad.

(3.) On receiving summons from the Magistrate's Court the appellant, who was, admittedly, the Manager of the Mill concerned, filed, on October 5, 1961, in his turn, a compliant before the Magistrate, under S. 92, read with S. 101 of the Act. To that compliant, respondents 2 and 3 were impleaded as accused. According to the appellant, about 2,400 workers are employed in the Mill, of which he is the Manager; and the Mill consists of several departments, with competent heads, having been put in charge of each department. The appellant stated that the management had instructed all the departmental heads to comply with the provisions of the Act. He referred to the fact that he had specifically warned the various heads of departments against double employment. He also averred that the second respondent was the Salesman of the Mill, for about twelve years, and that he was in charge of some departments of the Mill including the stamping department. The third respondent was a Supervisor in the stamping department and was in exclusive charge of the said department. The appellant further averred that the stamping department of the Mill was under the exclusive control of accused No. 1, on May, 26, 1961, and that it was in the sole charge of accused No. 2 at 3 a.m., on May 26, 1961. Therefore, he alleged, that respondents 2 and 3 were responsible for allowing the concerned workmen to work at 3 a. m. in the stamping department of the Mills, on May 26, 1961, contrary to the notice of periods of work displayed in the factory. Therefore, he averred, that those two respondents were the actual offenders who had violated S.63 and thus committed an offence under S.92 of the Act, by so employing those workers, referred to in the Factory Inspector's report. The appellant further stated that he was not present in the Mills when he said offence was committed by respondents 2 and 3, and that he had used due diligence to enforce the execution of the Act; and that respondents 2 and 3, who were the accused in his cross-complaint, had committed the offences in question, without his knowledge, consent or connivance. Therefore, he prayed for an inquiry into his allegations and to hold respondents 2 and 3 guilty of the offence of violation of the provisions of S. 63 of the Act.