MANUBHAI D SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeals Nos. 86 of 1969 87 of 1969 and 88 of 1969 which raise common questions of facts and law. The three appeals arise out of an order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned City Magistrate 11 Court Ahmedabad on December 9 1968 in Criminal Cases Nos. 2343 2344 and 2345 of 1968.

(2.) The appellant is the Manager of a textile mill known as the Ashok Mills Ltd. situated on Naroda Road Ahmedabad. The three prosecutions which resulted in the order of conviction and sentence stemmed from an incident which occurred on June 21 1968 on the premises of Ashok Mills Ltd. It is the prosecution case that three workers namely Manga Khoda Jivraj Jilu and Virchand Chhagan were found working on the Mill premises at 7-45 p.m. The Mill was working in three relays. For relay No. 1 the starting time was 7-00 a.m. and the stopping time was 3-30 p.m. For relay No. 2 the starting time was 3-30 p.m. and the stopping time was 12 midnight. The notified hours of rest as per Form No. 14 under Rule 87 were 7-30 p.m. to 8-00 p.m. (see Ex. 13). These were the hours applicable to several departments including the Frame Department. The evidence of P.W. 2 D. D. Dhruva Senior Inspector of Factories shows that on June 21 1968 when he visited the Frame Department of the said factory at 7-45 p.m. he found that even though it was recess time three frames were working and three persons namely Manga Khoda Jivram Jilu and Virchand Chhagan were operating frames Nos. 8 10 and 15 respectively. The said workers belonged to group A in the second relay. It is not in dispute that the names of these three workers were entered in the muster roll. It is also not in dispute that the recess time was from 7-30 to 8-00 p.m. P. W. 2 Dhruva at the time of inspection made an entry in the Inspection Book in this connection which is produced at Ex. 14. In view of this state of affairs the appellant who is the Manager of the said Factory (as disclosed by Ex. 15) was prosecuted.

(3.) The defence of the appellant was that he had not allowed the workers to work during the recess time. In fact in so far as Manga Khoda one of the three workers who was found working during the recess time was concerned action had been taken in past against him for working during the-recess time in contravention of the direction. It was also contended that instructions had been given to all the workers that they should refrain from working in the frame Department during the recess hours. The defence also examined the aforesaid three workers as defence witnesses and their evidence is to the effect that they had not been asked to work but that they were working of their own accord on that particular day. The learned Magistrate did not accept the plea of the defence and convicted the appellant in the manner stated earlier. Thereupon the appellant had approached this Court by way of three separate appeals which are now being disposed of by this judgment.