RAMANLAL CHIMANLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions challenge the vires of sec. 92 of the Factories Act 1948 in so far as it provides for imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for the offences set out in that section. Though the question of law raised in the two petitions is identical the facts giving rise to the two petitions are different and it is therefore necessary to set them out briefly before we proceed to discuss the question of law.

(2.) The facts in Special Civil Application No. 686 of 1962 are as follows. The first petitioner is a partner in a firm called M/s. Zaverchand Laxmichand Brothers & Co. which carries on business as Managing Agents of Shri Yamuna Mills Ltd. Shri Yamuna Mills Ltd. carries on business inter alia of manufacturing and selling cotton textile goods and for the purpose of manufacturing cotton textile goods it has a factory in Baroda. The factory is governed by the provisions of the Factories Act 1948 and in accordance with the provisions of sec. 2(n) of the Act the first petitioner is the occupier of the factory and he has been mentioned as such in the notice sent to the Chief Inspector of Factories under sec. 7 of the Act. The second petitioner is the manager of the factory. It appears that at about 2-30 a.m in the night of 15th November 1961 the kier in the bleaching department of the factory burst all of a sudden causing fatal injuries to a worker named Baburao Ramchandra. The Inspector of Factories who is the second respondent in the petition there- upon paid a visit to the factory and after investigating into the cause of the accident filed five criminal complaints arising out of the accident against the first petitioner as occupier and the second petitioner as manager of the factory. These cases were numbered Criminal Cases Nos. 653 to 657 of 1962 and were filed in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class 2 Court Baroda. The offences for which the petitioners were charged were contravention of sec. 31(1) of the Act and Rules 61 61 61 clauses (i) and (ii) and 61(i)(c) clauses (i) and (ii) of the Bombay Factories Rules 1950 read with sub-sec. (2) of sec. 31 and sec. 112 of the Act all the offences being punishable under sec. 92 of the Act. The petitioners thereupon preferred the present petition challen- ging the vires of sec. 92 of the Act in so far as it provides for imposition of sentence of imprisonment for the offences set out in that section.

(3.) The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 724 of 1962 is the occupier of the factory owned by Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. The factory is situate in Petlad and manufacture of cotton textile goods is being carried on in the factory. The factory is governed by the provisions of the Factories Act 1948 The petitioner is the occupier of the factory in his capacity as the Managing Agent of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. under sec. 2(n) of the Act. On 18th November 1961 a Junior Inspector of Factories who is the second respondent in the petition visited the factory and found that in respect of some of the workers working in the factory there was contravention of sec. 52(1)(a) punishable under section 92 of the Act and in respect of some others there was contravention of sec. 63 punishable under sec. 92 of the Act. The Junior Inspector of Factories thereupon filed two complaints against the petitioner as the occupier of the factory- one being for the offence under sec. 52(1)(a) punishable under sec. 92 and the other being for the offence under sec. 63 punishable under sec. 92. This led to the filing of the present petition by the petitioner challenging the vires of sec. 92 to the same extent to which its vires has been challenged in the first petition.