EMPEROR Vs. NANUBHAI MANEKLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals by Government against the acquittal by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad of the occupier and the manager of the Vivekanand Mills, Ahmedabad, who were convicted by the City Magistrate of offences under Section 41(a) of the Indian Factories Act.

(2.) According to the standing orders posted in the mill and notified to the Factory Inspector under Section 36 of the Act the working hours for the night shift in the mon May, 1932 were 6-30 p.m. to 5-30 a.m. with one hour's recess from 11-30 p.m. to 12-30 a.m. The Factory Inspector, who is said to have received complaints that the mill had been working overtime, paid a surprise visit at 5-45 a.m. on May 4 and found the mill still working. Holding that an offence had been committed, he took down the names of some of the mill-hands who were working and made complaints, which have led to the present appeals.

(3.) The defence was that owing to the breakage of a rope the working of the mill was stopped for fifteen minutes from 8-15 to 3-30 a.m., and therefore the closing hour was extended to 5- 45 a.m. The learned Government Pleader was not prepared to concede that there was in fact a stoppage of fifteen minutes. The evidence on the point is not free from doubt, but apparently that point was not seriously disputed in the trial Court, and in the appeal before the Sessions Judge the argument proceeded on the basis that there had been a break-down and the time had been extended for that reason. The evidence did not show whether the working hours had been extended by the manager, who, under Section 26, has to fix the hours of employment. The Sessions Judge directed further evidence to be recorded, and after considering this evidence he held that the engine stopped owing to the breakage of a rope from 3-15 to 3-30 a.m., and that at about 3-30 a. m. the manager changed the time-table and ordered the heads of departments to work till 5-45 a.m. Here, again, the evidence is not altogether convincing. But on the whole we think that no sufficient grounds have been shown for not accepting these findings of fact, and we are of opinion that the present appeal must be decided on the basis that they are correct.