STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. N K SHRIVASTAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State Government against an order of acquittal under the Factories Act (Act LXIII of 1948 ). The respondents K. N. Shnvastava and L. N. Bnagwati were at the relevant time respectively the uccupier and Manager of the Central India Machinery Manufacturing company Limited, Gwalior. On the 6th of May 1959, the said Company was inspected by Shri C. P. Tyagi, Factory Inspector, He noticed that the hoist way enclosure in the Factory was not provided with gates having interlocking arrangement or other efficient device to secure that the gate could not be opened except when the cage was at the landing, and that the cage could not be moved unless the gate had been closed. The present respondents were, theretore, prosecuted for breach of Section 28 (1) (e) of the Factories Act. The trial Court found the respondents guilty of the charge and sentenced them to pay a tine of Rs. 50\-each. On appeal, the order of conviction and sentence was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge, awalior.

(2.) THE contention of the present respondents In we Courts below was and still is, that the hoist which was imported from the United Kingdom in 1951 was provided with an arrangement whereby in order to operate it the operator had to come out of the enclosure so as to put on the switch, which was affixed outside the enclosure, This device, it was contended, was sufficient to meet the requirement of the law. The Courts below rejected this contention, and have rightly held that the interlocking arrangement required under the law has to be efficient in order to secure tray the gate cannot b opened except when the cage is at the landing, as also that the cage cannot be moved unless the gate is closed. In the present case, the operator actually got trapped between the moving cage and the fixed tranw of the structure. It is, therefore, obvious that the interlocking arrangement made by the manufacturers in the hoist was not sufficient in order to meet the requirements of Section 28 (1) (e) of the Factories Act.

(3.) THE contention which, however, found favour with the lower appellate Court was that the case of the present respondents was covered by Section 117 of the factories Act. That section runs as under;