NANDKISHORE SAKARLAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeals Nos. 861 of 1965 862 of 1965 and 863 of 1965 are filed against an order passed by the City Magistrate 11 Court Ahmedabad in each of the Criminal Cases convicting Nandkishore Sakarlal the occupier of the Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Company Limited Ahmedabad for having committed an offence under sec. 63 read with sec. 92 of the Factories Act 1948 referred to as the Act) and sentencing him in each case to pay a fine of Rs. 210/in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) Criminal Appeals Nos. 1154 of 1965 1155 of 1965 and 1156 of 1965 filed by Nandkishore Sakarlal the occupier of the Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Company Limited Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the factory) against the orders of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting Maneklal Jinabhai Kot the Manager Harivallabh Maganlal the Supervisor Stamping Department and Chandulal Lallubhai the Time-keeper of the Sarangpur Cotton Manufacturing Company Limited of the charge under sec. 63 read with sec. 92 of the Act. All these appeals raise common questions of law and fact and therefore I will dispose of the appeals by this judgment.

(3.) Criminal Appeals Nos. 861 of 1965 862 of 1965 and 863 of 1965 relate to complaints filed by Mr. A. G. Shaikh Legal Assistant Factory Departments Ahmedabad against Nandkishore Sakarlal the occupier of the factory alleging that on December 28 1964 Mr. U. A. Pandya Senior Inspector of Factories Ahmedabad visited the factory at 7-05 P.M. and found that the three workers namely Chandulal Chhaganlal Rameshchandra Ratilal and Ratilal Thakarshi were allowed to work otherwise than in accordance with the periods of work displayed on the notice board in the factory. The Factory Inspector made a note of his inspection in the Visit Book on the same day. The occupier i. e. Nandkishore Sakarlal and the Manager Maneklal Jinabhai Kot were not present in the factory at that time. The Supervisor Harivallabh Maganlal was present in the factory. He told the Factory Inspector that the workers were employed by him due to the pressure of work. The inspection notes of the factory inspector were forwarded to the occupier and he was asked to submit his explanation in respect of the irregularities that were noticed by the factory inspector. The occupier by his letter dated January 5 1965 submitted an explanation stating that Harivallabh Maganlal the Stamping Supervisor was in charge of the Stamping Department on the date of the offence; that he had instructed Harivallabh as well as the Departmental Heads several times In writing as well as orally not to employ workers otherwise than In accordance with the provisions of the Act; that he had appointed Departmental Heads who were responsible for observing the requirements of the provisions of the Act; that by a notification of the Government of India No. CC/Tech/AHD/48-64/569 dated October 28 1964 it was ordered that the Mill should pack up approximately 29 0 0 meters of cloth during the period from October 20 1964 to December 31 1964 that upto December 28 1964 morning 4 35 0 meters remained to be packed and they were to be packed and baled before December 31 1964 that in the Stamping Department there was an accumulation of about 8 0 0 meters of cloth which was ready for stamping and unless the said cloth was arranged in proper stacks and katcha slips attached to them the said cloth could not be packed and baled and as this job could not be done by the ordinary stampers the Supervisor had asked the above-mentioned three persons to work overtime in the second shift for about four hours for which they were to be paid. Harivallabh the Supervisor did not inform the occupier or the manager or other officers of the factory but of his own accord and in order to meet with the above contingencies had asked the above mentioned three persons to work overtime; that he came to know of the incident on the next morning at about 11-30 A.M. when he came to the mills and immediately preliminary order of suspension was served on the Supervisor Harivallabh Maganlal. Chandulal Lallubhai the time-keeper was also served with a show cause notice calling for an explanation as to why an action should not be taken against him for allowing the said breach. The Factory Inspector after obtaining the requisite sanctions filed complaints against the occupier for committing breach of the provisions of sec. 63 of the Act punishable under sec. 92 thereof.