STATE OF KERALA Vs. P J CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal and Special First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam acquitting the respondents who were charged for contravention of R.4 of the Kerala Factories Rules, 1957 prescribed under S.6(1)(b) of the Factories Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The two accused in the case are partners of the Suhara Rice and Oil Mill situated at Inchamudi in Trichur District. On 23-3-1962 Pw. 1 the Additional Inspector of Factories, Trichur visited the mill and found that three workers were employed there. They had failed to submit to the Chief Inspector of Factories an application in Form No. 2 for the registration of the factory and for the grant of licence as required under the Act and the Rules. On notice being issued to the accused they stated that they were employing only two workmen and that the Act does not apply. After obtaining sanction from the Chief Inspector of Factories a complaint was filed against the two accused.

(3.) Admittedly this mill is an establishment where power is being used and if the accused employs three or more workmen the mill would come within the purview of the Factories Act. Under the original notification issued by the State Government on 8-11-1957 under S.85 of the Factories Act the number of employees was fixed at 5 or more. But this notification was subsequently amended on 22-5-1959 and the number of persons to be employed was reduced to three. So if three or more persons are employed as workmen the accused would have to apply for registration and licence. The learned Special Magistrate on the evidence found that only two of the workmen had been employed in the manufacturing process and as the prosecution had not led any evidence regarding the nature of the work done by the third workman Chathu who was seen working by the Inspector in the yard it cannot be presumed that he was doing some work connected with or incidental, with the manufacturing process and acquitted the accused, holding that it is not a factory requiring registration and licence. The conclusions reached by the learned Special Magistrate are challenged in this appeal.