Petitioner challenged acquittal of accusee occupier and his own conviction under Section 92 of Factories Act for fatal factory accident. **HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH** held Section 92 covers both occupier and manager separately. No acquittal by parity.
Writ petition dismissed; orders of Labour Court and Industrial Court upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP No. 1596 of 2004
Anil Kumar Sinha, S/o. Mr. Thakur Balram Sinha, aged about 48 years, Dy. General Manager, Production, Simplex Castings Ltd., Unit-II, Urla, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board
01/08/2018
2
factory, where the petitioner was the Factory Manager on 11.06.1999. The nature of accident was that some civil fabrication work was being undertaken and while affixing of asbestos sheet on the roof, the said sheet broke and a worker who was working over the asbestos sheet fell and succumbed to the injuries. The person who succumbed to the injuries was the labour namely Ramesh Prasad Pathak. The matter was thereafter taken cognizance of by the Factory Inspector and in due course of time a charge sheet was filed before the Labour Court on 17.02.2000 alleging violation of the provisions of Factories Act resulting in a fatal accident.
3
and convicted the other, it could have been either conviction for both or acquittal for both with the same set of evidence and deposition made available before the Labour Court. It was also the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that from the evidences of the witnesses examined in defense, it would reveal that the petitioner had ensured all necessary steps and safety measures were being provided at the work site, however it was on the sheer negligence of the deceased himself that the accident occurred and for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible and thus prayed for setting aside of the two orders. It was also the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of the Factories Act particularly Section 7(A) envisages that for the breach of any of the provisions of Section 7, it would be the occupier, who would be the responsible for the said offence and as such the petitioner since he was not the occupier, but was only the Factory Manager, conviction of the petitioner was bad in law and the order deserves to be set-aside on this ground also.
4
(iii) As a result of the accident, one labour Ramesh Prasad Pathak fell from the roof top and succumbed to the injuries.
5
been acquitted, the petitioner in the capacity of the Factory Manager would also be entitled for an acquittal on the ground of parity. This argument of the petitioner would not be sustainable also for the simple reason that the prosecution itself has not been able to conclusively prove that Heeralal Shah was the occupier, rather there is evidence on the contrary to show that it was Ketan Shah who was the occupier at the relevant point of time. Thus the said contention of the petitioner stands negated.
10. For all the aforesaid reasons this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for an interference with the orders passed by the Labour Court, so also by the Industrial Court. The writ petition thus being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge
Ved
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Factory Manager is liable for contravention of the Factories Act independent of the occupier's acquittal.
Whether Section 92 of the Factories Act imposes liability on both the occupier and the manager for fatal accidents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Kumar Sinha
State of Chhattisgarh
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
