SATYAM CHOUDHARY Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to CC No.740 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur and consequently quash the same.

(2.) The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sec. 112, Sec. 61(1)(d)(9) and Sec. 62 of the Factories Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as ''the Act''). As per Sec. 112 Rule 103 & Rule 77(4), ''the Manager of every factory shall maintain a muster roll of all the workers employed in the factory in Form no.25 and the entries shall be made at the commencement of each period of work. When the petitioner's premise was inspected jointly by then Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health and Deputy Director of Industrial Safety and Health, Thiruvottiyur, it was found that cold storage with 15,716.6 sq.feet area is used for storage and preservation of the food products like butter, cheese, yogurt and chocolates etc., with a man power of 282 workers and machineries. The petitioner failed to maintain muster roll of all the workers employed in the factory in Form no.25. Further, as per Sec. 61(1)(d)(9) Rule 79, there shall be displayed and correctly maintained in every factory in accordance with the provisions of subsec. (2) of Sec. 108, a notice of periods during which adult workers may be required to work. On inspection, it was found that the petitioner failed to display in a conspicuous place both in English and Tamil about the notice of periods of work for adults. Further, the petitioner also failed to maintain a register of adult workers to be available to the Inspector at all times during working hours, or when any work is being carried on in the factory, showing the name of each adult worker in the factory, the nature of his work, the group, if any, as contemplated under Sec. 62 Rule 80 of the Factories Acts and Rules.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following grounds to quash the complaint viz, (i) there was a delay in lodgement of the complaint as contemplated under Sec. 106 of the Act; ii) the petitioner was served with only one show cause notice for alleged contraventions and without considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the respondent filed the complaint.