State Of Chhattisgarh Vs S. Hanumant Rao

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date:2025.08.25 10:04:05 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:41811

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPL No. 181 of 2016

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Labour Through The Deputy Director, Industrial Health And Safety Department And Deputy Chief Factory Inspector, Durg Division Durg Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

Ashok Kumar Adhibhogi Retired Executive Director Works Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, R/o J 12, Civil Township Raukela Orrisa , Orissa

¶11

S. Hanumant Rao Factory Manager, Bhilai, Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

with

¶14

WPL No. 186 of 2016

¶15

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Deputy Director, Industrial Health And Faety Housing Board Complex Raipur Naka Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶16

The Deputy Director, Industrial Health And Safety Housing Board Complex Raipur Naka, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶17

--- Petitioner(s)

¶18

Versus

¶19

S. Hanumant Rao S/o Shriniwas Rao, Aged About 60 Years Retired Factor Manager, Continuous Casting Shop, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District Drug Chhattisgarh R/o Flat No 705, Lot No 32, Rain Tree Park, Malaysian Township Hydrabad A.P., Andhra Pradesh

¶20

--- Respondent(s)

¶21

For State/Petitioners : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General

¶22

2

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶24

Order on Board

¶25

19.08.2025

¶26

Heard on admission.

¶27

The above captioned Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and facts; therefore, both petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶28

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 05.05.2015 passed by the learned Industrial Court in Criminal Appeal No. 01/CG.I.R.Act/IV/2014 (parties being "Ashok Kumar Adhibhogi Vs. State of CG. and others") and Criminal Appeal No.02/CG.I.R.Act/IV/2014 (parties being "S. Hanumant Rao Vs. State of CG. and others"), whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondents was allowed and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Labour Court, Durg, dated 03.06.2014, was setaside.

¶29

The facts of the present case are that on 27.10.2008, around 12.30 pm, on account of the fall of the ladle cover from the turret arm over the slab caster machine No. 6, one workman, namely Moses, sustained injuries and subsequently died. The death was communicated in form No. 22 to the Office of the petitioners on 29.10.2008, and an inspection was conducted on 30.10.2008, and during the course of the inspection, the statements of labourers were recorded. The authority concerned found illegalities and irregularities during the course of inspection in the premises of respondents with regard to protective appliances/measurements, which was in violation of Section 41 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short “Act, 1948”) read with Rule 73-E of the Factories Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred as “Rules, 1962”). The competent authority also noticed violation of Sections 7-A(1), 29(1)(a)(i) and 29(2) of the Act, 1948, and Rule 62(1) of the Rules, 1962. A

¶30

3

¶31

show-cause notice was issued to the respondents on 11.11.2008, seeking therein an explanation. Reply was filed by the respondents on 26.11.2008. A complaint/charge-sheet under Section 105 of the Act, 1948, and the rules made therein was filed against the respondents before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Labour Court, Durg, and it was registered as Criminal Case No. 17/2009.

¶32

The statement of the Factory Inspector was recorded before the learned Labour Court, which categorically supported his case and deposed that in the premises, there were deficiencies with regard to the preventive appliances for workers, working at casting sites, and the chain that was used for the ladle cover was not examined by an expert.

¶33

The respondents were afforded the opportunity before the learned Labour Court to adduce evidence. The Court concerned vide judgment dated 03.06.2014 awarded a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- for violation of each Section and Rules and sentenced with simple imprisonment for a term of one year, and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for three months.

¶34

The respondents herein preferred an appeal against the said judgment before the learned State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Division, and vide judgment dated 05.05.2015, it was allowed.

¶35

Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/petitioners, would submit that the learned Industrial Court ought to have considered the provisions contained in Section 104-A of the Act, 1948, and according to the provisions, the onus lies upon the respondents to prove the fact that all practicable measures were taken. He would further submit that on account of the accident dated 17.10.2008, in the factory premises, a labourer, namely, Mr. Moses, died as the ladle cover fell down

¶36

4

¶37

from a height of 18 feet. He would also submit that the safety measures were not working properly. He would contend that the act of the respondents was also punishable according to the provisions of the IPC. He would further contend that proper certificates with regard to the examination of the ladle cover chain were not produced, as it was not examined pursuant to a direction/instruction issued by the respondents. He would pray to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Industrial Court.

¶38

I have heard Mr. Gupta at length and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶39

10. Perusal of the record would show that the petitioners examined one K.K. Dwivedi, Factory Inspector, as the complaint was filed by the said authority. The petitioners failed to examine the expert to prove the fact that the chain connecting the ladle with the cover tandiskar was not of the required quality; eye witnesses to the accidents were not examined; photographs and postmortem report were not proved by leading cogent evidence, though the workers, namely B.K. Soni, J.S. William, and J. Pandey were present at the time of the accident, but those witnesses were not examined.

¶40

11. The witness, namely, K.K. Dwivedi, admitted the fact that the certificates Exhibit P/3 & P/4, along with a guarantee certificate and test reports, were received by him. He has also admitted that the ladle cover chain was tested in West Bengal. He also admitted that he never examined or sent the part of the chain for examination to the expert. He has also admitted the fact that with regard to the temperature bearing capacity of the chain, no enquiry was ever conducted by the said witness.

¶41

12. The petitioners failed to prove the negligence on the part of the

¶42

5

¶43

respondents, and therefore, the learned Industrial Court allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents; thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court.

¶44

13. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . No cost(s).

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶47

$iddhant

State Of Chhattisgarh v. S. Hanumant Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. S. Hanumant Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Piyush Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Shri Ashutosh Structures Pvt. Ltd. (Previous Name Shri Ashutosh Engineering Industries) Vs Central Board of Trustees

Dr. Tohal Sahay Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhash Sharma Vs Abhishek Kumar Chand

Sanjay Kumar Banjare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh