J L MEHTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only moot question of law involved in the abovemen -tioned applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is whether the premises or precincts of an administrative office of a company or any Institution where diesel generating set(s) are installed for generating energy (electricity) for the use in the office premises during load -shedding by the State Electricity Board, is a factory to attract the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (in short, the Act) and Bihar Factories Rules, 1950 (in short, the Rules) requiring registration of the premises as such with incidental obligation of maintaining certain Registers, etc., more particularly, as required under Rules 85, 86, 87. and 104 of the abovementioned Rules, so that non -compliance therewith attracts the penal provision of Section 92 of the Act?

(2.) THE short facts giving rise to these applications are that on 29.8.97 Sri Gopal Kumar, the Factories Inspector of Ranchi Circle No. II visited Darbhanga House in the town of Ranchi wherein the administrative office of the Central Coalfields Ltd. is located, and found that as many as 6 power generating sets of 970 KVA and 2 transformers of 750 KVA were functioning. He also learnt that as many as 13 persons were employed by the company for operating those power generating sets, the break up being 3 foremen, 3 helpers and 7 others meant for cleaning those sets. He asked for registration certificate, but the same was not produced as the premises was not registered as a factory with the Chief Factories Inspector. On demand, Registers of 'Adult ' workers, Notice regarding working hours of 'Adult ' workers, Register respecting leave with wages, and Accident Register were also not produced. The premises was also not approved by the then Factories Inspector in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. At the relevant time, the petitioner in Crim. Misc. no. 1743/98R and 3350/98R was posted as Director (Technical P & P); whereas the other petitioners, namely, J. L. Mehta and K. P. Sinha were posted as Chief General Manager and Chief General Manager (Administration) respectively, who are petitioners in Crim. Misc. no. 1685/98R and 3611/98R. When the Factories Inspector (opposite party no. 2, in all the four applications) found that the premises where power generating sets were installed and were functioning at the time of his visit/inspection and Registers mentioned above were not produced, he served the petitioners with a copy of the inspection report dt. 3.10.97 requiring them to get the premises registered and plans respecting thereof approved. When the directions given by the Factories Inspector were not complied with, a reminder dt. 21.10.97 was also sent. In the meantime, the petitioners initially sought some time for compliance with the directions regarding approval of the plan of the premises where power generating sets were installed, but ultimately they sent a letter dt. 16.10.97 asserting that the premises does not fall within the definition of a factory as defined under the Factories Act. Therefore, they were not liable to get the same registered and plans etc. approved. When the directions of opp. party no. 2 were not complied with, he filed two written complaints against the petitioners in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Ranchi one on 25.11.97 for their prosecution under Section 92 of the Act for violation of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act and Rules 4, 5 and 10 of the Rules. In that complaint, petitioner Balaswamy Akala, the Director (Technical P & P) was arrayed as accused no. 1 while petitioners J. L. Mehta and K. P. Sinha were arrayed as accused nos. 2 and 3. Another written complaint dt. 27.11.97 was filed for the prosecution of the petitioners under Section 92 of the Act for violation of the provisions of Rule 102. of the Rules. In that complaint also petitioners Balaswamy Akala, J. L. Mehta and K. P. Sinha were arrayed as accused nos. 1, 2 and 3. The complaint petition dt. 25.11.97 was registered as case no. C lll -285/97; whereas complaint dt. 27.11.97 was registered as case no. C III -286/97.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that the premises or precincts whereat power, generating sets are installed, cannot be treated as factory in view of the fact that therefrom power is generated for use in: the office only during load shedding resorted to by the State Electricity Board. As a matter of fact, for the purposes of drawing electricity they have taken HI connection from the Bihar State Electricity Board for its headquarters situated at Darbhanga House, Ranchi and only when there is failure of electricity by the State Electricity Board, the generating sets are used for supply of electricity to the headquarters building in question. They have also asserted that the allegation of opp. party no. 2 that as many as 13 workers are employed for operating those power generating sets is incorrect. As a matter of fact, only three operators have been employed for working during each of three shifts and there are 3 category mazdoors. Even though employed for other purposes, their services are utilised for cleaning the generator sets. On these grounds, they have contended that even if the allegations made by opp. party no. 2 in the twin complaint petitions are taken as true, no offence under Section 92 of the Act is made out. Therefore, to permit the proceedings against them to continue shall be abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, it is contended that proceedings in both the cases are liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent power vested in this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In reply to the applications of the petitioners, counter affidavits have been filed by and on behalf of opposite party no. 2 supporting the allegations made in the complaint petitions.