SHYAMAL KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of complaint case bearing C/2 Case No.2971 of 2007 including the order dated 24.8.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence under section 92 of the Factories Act has been taken for violation of the provisions as contained under sections 61, 62, 79, 52, 54, 56, 59,46, 47 of the Factories Act read with Rule 80, 79, 87,88, 67(2), 70 and 71 of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950.

(2.) THE facts giving rise this application are that one Binay Kumar, Factory Inspector along with officers of the Labour Department made a surprise inspection on 28.5.2007 in the factory premises of M/s. Timken India Limited. In course of inspection, inspecting team found 125 contract labourers employed by different contractors as well as 394 permanent labourers engaged in different process of the production. But entries of contract labourers were not found in requisite Form 12 and that the large number of workmen were found working beyond their working hours and that working hours in respect of workmen had not been displayed and that temporary labourers (contract) though were working continuously for years together but were not provided either the leave book nor they are being provided the salary paid annual leave and that attendance register and attendance card of number of workmen were not found and that workmen were not being provided with weekly holidays and that all the facilities were being not provided at the canteen to the workmen and that no rest room or shelter room was found.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the prosecution has been launched on the premise that the petitioners did not comply the direction given under the show cause notice dated 3.5.2007 but that was not correct as reply had already been made on 5.6.2007 and subsequently, on 10.7.2007 it had been intimated that the documents sought to be produced had already been furnished before the Deputy Labour Commissioner but the reply submitted by the petitioners were never taken into consideration and as such, entire prosecution is bad.