SHUBH KARAN JAGNANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revisions arise out of the recommendations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerning the four prosecutions initiated by the Factory Inspector under the Factory Act, 1948 against the Factory Manager of the Birla Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. Three Workers of the said Mills are concerned in each of the four complaints; all the complaints relate to what the Inspector of factories found on the occasion of his visit to the Mills on 15-3-69. Since all the recommendations ''relate to the same visit and the allegations made in each of the four complaints are practically the same, all these four criminal revision petitions are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) It is sufficient to extract the allegations made in one of the four complaints to understand what, according to the Inspector of Factories, was the offence committed by the Factory manager of the Biria Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited. That Shri Subh Karan Jagnani, manager is accased No. 1 and D.R.Maida occupier is accused .No. 2 for purpose of Factories Act 48. That the above stated factory was inspected by the Inspector of Factories, Delhi, on 15-3-69 where the following breach of the provisions of the Factories Act 1948 was observed. That the following workers were foand working in Weaving Dept. at 5.40 p.m. otherwise than in accordance with the notice of period of work displayed from 1.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. with rest interval from 5.30 p.m. to 6. p.m.) (1) Manohar Lal .........Weaver (2) KishanLal .........Weaver (3) Panna Lal ..........Weaver. That the aceused is/are ga'lty of contravening the provisions of section 63 ef the Foctories Act and punishable under section 92 of . the said Act with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both."

(3.) It is also necessary to read section 63 of the Factories Act which is as follows:- SECTION 63. "No adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in any foctory otherwise than in accordance with the notice of periods of work for adults displayed in the factory and the entries made beforehand against his name in the register of adult workers of the factory." A mere perusal of the said section shows that what is made punishable is the act of the management, the Factory Manager in this case, requiring or allowing any adult worker to work in any factory otherwise than in accordance with the notice of the periods of work displayed in the factory.) ft is stated that in this case the workers rest-period was between 530 p.m. to 6 p.m The Factory Inspector, found the adult workmen referred to in each of the four complaints working at 5.40 p.m. on 15-3-69, when he visited the factory.