TATA R N CHAIRMAN TATA POWER CO LTD Vs. DY DIRECTOR INDL HEALTH AND SAFETY AND INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES INDORE DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for quashing the complaint in Criminal Case No. 99 of 1992 as against petitioner Shri R.N, Tata, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithampur, District-Dhar (Labour Court), for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), and also the summons issued to him as per order dated February 29, 1993.

(2.) This Court has the powers of the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as provided in Section 64(2) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. Therefore, it has the powers under Section 482 Cr PC also, that has been made clear by the High Court in Provident Fund Inspector v. Mohan Jute Mills Limited,1998 MPLSR 353.

(3.) A complaint was filed on August 18, 1992 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Labour Court) against (1) Shri Ratan Tata, Chairman, Nelco Company, Bombay, (2) Shri Hukum Chand Jain, Vijay Nagar, Indore, and (3) Shri Ishaq Abraham (Manager). The name and address of the factory are shown as "Kohinoor Electronics Limited, S-4/1, Sector 1, Pithampur, District-Dhar", It is stated in the complaint that there is contravention of Sections 6 and 7 of the Act inasmuch as the licence obtained under this Act was not displayed in the factory premises and it was not produced before the Inspector of Factories during the course of inspection done by him on May 19, 1992, There is an Inspection-note annexed to the complaint in which it is mentioned that during the course of inspection 13 persons whose names are given therein were found working in the factory. According to the recitals in the Inspection-note the manufacturing process was going on in the factory as the colour T.V. were being assembled in the brand name of "Nelco". There is a copy of notice dated May 19, 1992 addressed to three persons named above in which it is stated that the factory was being run without obtaining the licence as required by Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. It is further stated that the Manager who was present in the factory premises gave the details of the "occupiers."