RAGHUNATH MOHAPATRA AND ANR. Vs. INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the appellate judgment of the Sessions Judge of Puri maintaining the conviction of the two Petitioners under Section 92 of the Factories Act and the sentence of fine of Rs. 60 - passed on each of them for that offence.

(2.) ONE Venkata Rao (p.w. 1), Inspector of Factories inspected the East Coast Wood Work on 12 -7 -1962 at 11.30 a.m. He found 10 workers working in the factory and a 27 H.P. Diesel Engine being used for driving the vertical band saw and the grinder. Petitioner Debaraja Acharya was there. The factory had not been registered under the provisions of the Factories Act. The Inspector then prepared It report of inspection of the factory in the printed form and got it signed by Debaraja Acharya as partner of East Coast Wood Work, Nayagarh and also prepared a statement showing the number of workers in the factory and then initiated a prosecution against the two Petitioners for having run a factory without applying for registration and obtaining a regular license as required under the Orissa Factories Rules.

(3.) Mr. Das then contended that in accordance with they definition of 'factory ' as given in Sub -clause (1) of Clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, the day, the number of labourers working in the factory became 10 or more was the crucial date for deciding whether the institution became a factory or not. According to Mr. Das, therefore, as 10 workers were found only on the date of inspection by the Inspector, namely, 12 -7 -1962, the occupier could apply for registration within 12 months from that date. This argument though ingenious is wholly unsustainable. It is not the case of anyone that the factory started to work only on the date of inspection by the Inspector. The Inspector made a surprise inspection and found that the factory was working in full swing. Petitioner Debaraja Acharya as a partner of the firm is, the best ' person to say when the factory began to work, but he has discreetly avoided the witness box. In the absence of any evidence we cannot assume that 10 workers were employed in the factory for the first time only on the date of inspection, namely, 12 -7 -1962. It is also not correct to say that the occupier of the factory need apply for registration only within 12 months after the date on which the factory commenced its working. He should apply for registration and for necessary license before the factory begins to function as a factory.