STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SANDEEP BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a factory owner who exposes his workmen to unsafe working conditions in contravention of the relevant provisions contained in the Gujarat Factories Rules, 1963 (the Rules for convenience) framed under the Factories Act, 1948 (the Act for brief) be leniently dealt with on his pleading guilty to the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Act? To do so will certainly amount to mockery or travesty of justice. It is unfortunate that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 4 at Ahmadabad does not seem to have realised this while imposing sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- on the respondent on his pleading guilty to the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Act read with Rule 61(1)(c)(i) of the Rules.

(2.) It is not necessary to set out in detail the facts giving rise to this appeal. The respondent herein runs a factory in the name and style of Anil Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd. It is engaged in production of dyes intermediates. It appears that some accident was reported and thereupon the Factory Inspector visited the factory in question sometime on 7th, 8th and 15th October 1991. It was found that the plant was operated at a pressure greater than the atmospheric pressure. Rule 61(1)(c)(i) of the Rules would require the factory owner in such a case to fit the plant or the machinery with a suitable safety valve or other effective device to ensure that the maximum permissible working pressure of the vessel shall not be exceeded. In the course of the aforesaid visits, the concerned Factory Inspector found that the plant was not fitted with the necessary safety valve in contravention of the aforesaid statutory provision. Thereupon a complaint was lodged on 6th January 1992 in Court No. 4 of the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court at Ahmadabad charging the respondent herein with the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Act read with Rule 61(1)(c)(i) of the Rules. It came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 97 of 1992. The respondent herein as the accused was explained the offence with which he was charged. He pleaded guilty to the charge. Thereupon by the order passed on 28th January 1993 in the aforesaid criminal case, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Court No. 4 at Ahmadabad sentenced the respondent-accused with fine of Rs. 500/-. The leniency with which the respondent-accused was dealt with by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate aggrieved the State Government. It has, therefore, preferred this appeal before this Court under Section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for enhancement of the sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate.

(3.) It cannot be gainsaid that Rule 61 of the Rules provides for certain safety measures. Provisions for safety measures are made in Chapter IV of the Act. The Rules appear to have been made under Chapter IV of the Act. Section 92 thereof makes the offence resulting in contravention of provisions relating to safety measures to be of an aggravated kind. In that view of the matter, a serious offence can be said to have been committed by the respondent-accused by exposing the workmen of his factory to unsafe working conditions. Not to fit the plant or the machinery of the factory with the necessary safety valve when it was working with the pressure in excess of the atmospheric pressure might have resulted in saving a few bucks on the part of the factory owner, that is, the respondent-accused herein. By his adopting such undue economic drive, the respondent-accused has certainly exposed the workmen of his factory to certain occupational hazards. They might be required to work out of compulsion under such hazardous and unsafe working conditions prevalent in the factory. They have to work for their bread. They might have to feed their own mouths and those of their dependents as well. They might have been left with no choice or alternative but to work in such factories even at the peril of hazards to their persons or even to their lives. Their exposure to such unsafe working conditions in such factories can be said to be their exploitation by owners of such factories. I think the factory owner guilty of contravention of safety provisions has to be dealt with severely and seriously even on his pleading guilty to the charge. He cannot be permitted to profiteer by bypassing safety measures. To let him do so will be detrimental to the interests of the workmen and will tantamount to frustrating the objects of Chapter IV of the Act. I think the learned trial Magistrate was not justified in dealing with the respondent-accused with undue leniency in the matter of sentence even on his pleading guilty to the offence with which he was charged.