INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES Vs. SHOWA ENGINEERING LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ appeals are directed against the interim order, which was made absolute by order dated 22-8-2003 in w. P. M. P. Nos. 6081 and 6082 of 2003. When the writ appeals came up for final disposal, both the learned Government Advocate and Mr. A. L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent agreed to dispose of the main writ petitions instead of hearing the writ appeals. Accordingly, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THE writ petitions are filed against the show cause notice dated 17-12-2002 on the basis of the inspection conducted on 29-10-2002 with reference to the occurrence of accident on 26-10-2002 in the premises of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner was directed to give his explanation within a period of seven days. Accordingly, by letter dated 8-1-2003. the Manager of the writ petitioner submitted his explanation and also requested 15 days time on behalf of the writ petitioner to give a detailed explanation. A memo was sent by the inspector of Factories on 13-1-2003, negativing the request made by the writ petitioner. Thereafter, a reply was sent on 22-1-2003. Before receipt of the above said reply, as the complaint has to be lodged within 90 days from the date of accident i. e. 26-10-2002, a proposal was submitted on 14-1-2003 to the Chief Inspector of Factories, chennai for getting sanction to launch criminal prosecution against the writ petitioner as well as the Manager. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent, writ petitions are filed contending that as contemplated under section 88 of the Factories Act, immediately after the occurrence of the accident, it was intimated to the Inspector. Though it is denied by the Inspector, after consideration of the explanation submitted by the Manager and the writ petitioner on 8-1-2003 and 22-1-2003, the respondent should have passed an order in accordance with law, against which, an order of appeal is provided under section 107 of the Factories Act. Therefore, in view of not considering the explanation submitted by the Manager and the writ petitioner dated 8-1-2003 and 22-1-2003 respectively, launching the prosecution mainly on the ground that they have to launch the prosecution within a period of three months from the date of knowledge of the accident is illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Factories act and detrimental to the interest of the petitioners as they have lost the right of appeal provided under the statute and they also have a right to seek time to comply with the lapses pointed out during the inspection by the Inspector and the limitation starts from that date instead of 90 days from the date of knowledge of the accident. Therefore, the order is set aside. The only reason for not considering the explanation submitted by the Manager on 8-1-2003 is that they want to drag on the prosecution which has to be launched within a period of three months from the date of the accident and the show cause notice dated 17-12-2002 was not treated as a final order, which is illegal.

(3.) WE are not able to accept the explanation offered by the respondent that the show cause notice dated 17-12-2003 is not a final order, which is quite contrary to the provisions of the Act and consequently on the alleged presumption that they want to drag on the proceedings and that the Limitation of three months has lapsed, the prosecution launched against the petitioner in C. C. No. 3 of 2003 is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the explanations submitted by the writ petitioner dated 8-1-2003 and 22-1-2003 in reply to the show cause notice dated 17-12-2002 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, the parties have to work out their remedy viz. , seeking extension of time to comply with the lapses pointed out by the inspector under Explanation 2 under section 106 of the Factories Act. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed and writ appeals are dismissed. Consequently, connected W. A. M. Ps are dismissed. No costs.