SHYAM MADANMOHAN RUIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONCE both these petitions involve a common question of law on the identical facts they are being disposed of together by common judgment.

(2.) THE short question involved in these petitions is whether the Chairman and the managing Director who have been prosecuted under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948, could be prosecuted and held liable for not displaying notice of period of work under section 61 of the Act or for not maintaining the leave and wages register under Section 83 or not maintaining inspection book under Section 92 of the Act read with Rule 124 of the Rules.

(3.) UNDISPUTED facts which have been made basis for prosecution under the provisions of the Factories Act are as follows: petitioner 1 was the Managing Director of petitioner 2-company which is. a registered company. The Factory Inspector had visited the factory on September 16, 1987 for inspection. He noticed that there was contravention with regard to the notice of period of work not having been displayed and the leave with wages register not being maintained. At the relevant time Factory Manager had gone out of the factory for urgent work and, therefore, the requisite registers were not produced for inspection. A notice was addressed to the chairman and the Managing Director of the company on October 16, 1987 drawing their attention about the alleged violation of the rules. On behalf of the petitioners reply was sent, dated November 24, 1987, in which it was pointed out that the aforesaid documents were being maintained by their Kalwe Factory manager and were kept in the safe custody by the Factory Manager at their Kalwe unit. It was further pointed out that since their factory manager Sri A. V. Pius was away from the duty, the said registers could not be produced. By the said reply there was an offer made to produce the said documents for inspection. Copy of the said reply is annexed as Exhibit E in both the petitions. By letter, dated January 5, 1988 (Exhibit F to the petitions) the factory had sent the stability certificate, dated december 31, 1987, to the Inspector of factories. The said certificate was issued by a competent person, viz. , Sri M. P. Pandit, chartered Structural Engineer. In spite of the above correspondence the prosecution was launched by filing a complaint in the Court of judicial Magistrate, First Class at Thane, copy whereof is annexed as Exhibit L to these petitions.