STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. K K MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of K. K. Modi, the "Occupier", and Balwant Singh Birdi, the Manager, of Modi Hurricane Lantern Factory, Modinagar, Meerut from charges for breaches of Sections 52 and 63 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Rule 78 of the U. P. Factories Rules, 1950, read with Section 62 of the Act.

(2.) THE respondents were prosecuted upon a complaint filed by the Chief Inspector of Factories, U. P., in the court of the District Magistrate, Meerut, which was ultimately disposed of by a First Class Magistrate of Ghaziabad who acquitted the respondents of all the charges levelled against them. According to the complaint, P. C. Joshi P. W. 1, Inspector of Factories, Meerut, visited the factory of the respondents at 2.30 P. M. on Sunday, the 4th of November, 1962, and found that 8 workers were working at that time without the delivery of a notice at the office of the Inspector of Factories. Meerut, by the Manager of the Factory of the intention to require these workers to work and without displaying a notice to that effect in the premises of the factory. Section 52(1) of the Act provides as follows:--

(3.) SO far as the violations of Rule 78 read with Section 62 of the Act are concerned, I find that respondent No. 1 K. K. Modi, the occupier, is unable to explain anything as he seems to have left everything to his Manager. He only stated that his Manager will explain every thing. Balwant Singh Birdi, the Manager, respondent No. 2, however, has admitted that the attendance register had not been filled up on November 1. 2, 3 and 4, 1962, as' required by Rule 78, so far as 7 workers are concerned. His explanation was that these entries could not be made immediately because it was the beginning of the month and a number of registers had to be filled up. The explanation given by Shanti Lal, D. W. 1, was that the practice was to take attendance on some 'Kachcha register' before it was copied out in the 'Pucca register'. Under cross-examination, he stated that he had not brought the Kuchcha register with him although he alleged that he had shown the Kuchcha register to the Factory Inspector. This witness also admitted that he signed the inspection note of the Factory Inspector. The statement of Shanti Lal indicates that he was trying to fill up the 'pucca register" when the Factory Inspector came to the factory and perhaps it was for this reason that entries were not duly filled up with regard to 7 workers only whereas the other entries were already there. This means that probably the other entries were also not made within time. The Factory Inspector stated that no Kuchcha register was shown to him. No such Kuchcha register was mentioned by the Manager who stated that the entries used to be made on the token cards of the workers, and, after looking into these token cards. the entries used to be made in the regular registers. The defence was that the regular attendance registers used to be sent to the office for calculation of wages of the workers at the beginning of the month. The result was that Rule 78 of the U. P. Factories Rules was certainly violated even on the admissions of or on behalf of the accused.