S M DATTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Miscellaneous Criminal Applications are filed by the same petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaints and the process issued pursuant thereto in Criminal Cases Nos.193, 194, 195 and 196 of 1990 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhidham. The original complaints, identical except for the name of the worker involved, are filed by the Factory Inspector, Adipur, on the basis of his inspection visit to the factory of the company situated in Kandla Free Trade Zone, Gandhidham. The petitioner was the Vice Chairman of the company at the relevant time and he was admittedly the "occupier" under the Factories Act, 1948 (the Act, for short) of the aforesaid factory of the company.

(2.) The original complaints are filed in an identical preprinted form by filling the blanks, wherein it is alleged that, at the time of visit on 17.10.1989 at 6.00 p.m., a workman in Group 'C' was found to be working after the prescribed working hours in violation of Section 63 whereby the offence under Section 92 of the Act was committed. It is further stated in the complaint that the notice of periods of work in Form-14 prescribed the period of the shift to be 8.00 to 4.30 in which 12.00 to 12.30 was recess and thereafter 4.30 to 4.40 was again recess and 4.40 to 6.40 was shown as overtime. The workman was found to be working on duty at 6.00 p.m. Thus, it is alleged that, by requiring or allowing the adult worker to work in the factory otherwise than in accordance with the notice of periods of work and the entries made beforehand against his name in the register of adult worker, the provisions of Section 63 were violated and the offence punishable under Section 92 was committed. The present petitioner being the "occupier" was accordingly summoned by the order of the court which is under challenge in these petitions.

(3.) It is contended in the petition that the company of which the petitioner was the vice chairman at the relevant time had applied for specific exemptions from the provisions of the Act in order to enable itself to engage workers on overtime and such exemptions were granted in respect of some quarters. However, admittedly, such exemptions from the provisions of Sections 51, 52, 54, 55 & 56 of the Act were not granted and were not subsisting at the relevant time. But, according to the petitioner, the exemptions granted earlier showed that the workers of the factory in question were engaged in a work of national importance. It is further pleaded that the overtime work being done was within the limits laid down in Rule 91 of the Rules framed under the Act and that the complaints were filed mala fide against the vice chairman as well as the manager with a deliberate intention of harassing the petitioner for alleged trifle offence. It is also pleaded that, prima facie, no offence is committed by the petitioner and hence the proceedings are required to be quashed.