B L RAINA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.6.1999 passed by learned C.J.M., Jamshedpur in complaint case No. C/2-702 of 1999 whereby he took cognizance of the offence under section 92 of the Factory Act. It appears that the Factory Inspector, Jamshedpur Circle No. 1, Jamshedpur filed a complaint alleging therein that the petitioners being occupier and manager of M/s. Tinplate Company of India Ltd. had closed the factory from 4.2.1999 in violation of Rules, 100-A of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950. On the basis of aforesaid official complaint, learned C.J.M., Jamshedpur took cognizance of the offence under section 92 of the Factory Act vide order dated 30.6.1999.

(2.) It is submitted by Sri Manish Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that petitioners filed an application on 1.6.1999 under section 25(o) of Industrial Dispute Act for permission to close the plant. It is submitted that initially permission was refused, but when the petitioners company filed review application, permission granted in the month of October, 1999. It is submitted that petitioners did not violate any law and the closure of the plant was in accordance with law. It is then submitted that in case of permanent closure Rule 100-A of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950 has no application. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also submits that Rule 100-A of Bihar Factories Rules 1950 is a State Law whereas Industrial Dispute Act is a Central law. It is submitted that since the Central Act covers the same field, therefore Rule 100-A of the Bihar Factories Rules become inoperative. Accordingly, it is submitted that the prosecution of petitioners under section 92 of the Factory Act is illegal.

(3.) On the other hand, Sri S.K. Dubey, learned Additional P.P. submits that it has been alleged that petitioners closed the plant from 4.2.1999 i.e. much before the date of filing of application under section 25(o) of Industrial Dispute Act. Thus petitioners not only violated the provisions of Rule 100-A of Bihar Factories Rules 1950, but they also contravened the provisions of contained in section 25 (o) of the Industrial Dispute Act. It is submitted that in the instance case, cognizance of the offence taken under section 92 of the Factories Act. It is submitted that the Factory Act as well as the Industrial Dispute Act are Central Act. It is then submitted that as per section 26 of the General Clauses Act if the same acts and omissions constitute offences under two acts then the petitioner can be prosecuted under either of the Act. It is submitted that in the instant case, it is alleged that the petitioners closed the factory w.e.f. 4.2.1999 without giving any information either to the complainant or to the State Government. Therefore, petitioners can be punished either under the Industrial Dispute Act or under the Factory Act. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order which requires any interference by this Court.