Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of prosecution under the Factories Act for a factory accident. Court held petitioner was not occupier and noted no cogent case against her.
The entire criminal prosecution and the cognizance order dated 18.05.2015 were set aside along with vacating the interim order dated 26.07.2017.
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 Cr.M.P. No. 1913 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1913 of 2015
Mrs. Harjot Kaur, W/o Shri Dipak Kumar Singh, presently working as Secretary, Department of Tourism, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, P.O. & P.S. Sachivalaya, Patna, State: Bihar, Pin-800015
… Petitioner
-Versus-
… Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Ms. Surabhi, Advocate For the Opposite Party-State : Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, A.P.P.
09/21.02.2022. Heard Ms. Surabhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2
Cr.M.P. No. 1913 of 2015
Factories Rules, 1950:
(i) By allowing the owner of the van to drive the van in reverse direction on a narrow approach road, who was not a regular driver and who was in a hurry to finish the job as soon as possible, so that he can go to his house and drop his daughter to the examination centre that also without any helper or signal man, and without a mirror especially on the left side of the van;
(ii) By not imparting proper training to the contractor workers and by not supervising the jobs done by them or their agencies/contractors, and by not making strict and smart supervision of the work which was going inside the factory premises; and
(iii) By allowing Shri Shrawan Kumar Sharma to give direction to the driver in an unsafe manner while unsafe condition was prevailing there, as a result of which, Sri Shrawan, contract labour met with an accident on 13.03.2012.
The complaint was forwarded by the Factory Inspector to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela with a request to take cognizance under Section 105 of the Factories Act, 1948 for contravention of sub-section 2(a) and 2(c) of Section 7-A of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 55(A)(2) of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.
3 Cr.M.P. No. 1913 of 2015
person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory provided that in the case of a firm or other association of individuals, any one of the individual partners or members thereof shall be deemed to be the occupier. By way of referring page 60 of the petition, which is Form No.17-A by which it is required to disclose the name of occupier, she submits that in Form No.17-A, the name of occupier is disclosed as Dilip Kumar Sarkhel and the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, who was the Managing Director of the said Federation. She also submits that the accident was not taken place in the premises of the Factory or Federation. The accident took place due to laches on the part of the deceased. She further submits that the petitioner is a Government official and the protection in terms of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is there and without obtaining any sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the case has been instituted against the petitioner. She also submits that as per the judgment in case of J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers , reported in (1996) 6 SCC 665 , certain provisions of the Factories Act are required to be looked into in its entirety in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable for such irregularity or not. She draws attention of the Court towards Sections 97 and 111 of the Factories Act and submits that in the cognizance order, it has not been disclosed how the petitioner is involved in such accident. She relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarav Investment and Financial Consultancy (P) Ltd. v. Lloyds Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund , reported in (2007) 14 SCC 753 .
4
Cr.M.P. No. 1913 of 2015
that is why the case under the provisions of the Factories Act has been rightly filed.
13, which is quoted herein below:
“13. The problem can be looked from another angle. If the view taken by the High Court that the provision is directory is accepted as correct, it would in effect amount to making the provisions of sub- clause (c) of Statute 61(6)(iv) otiose. In such a case the consequences provided therein that if no option is exercised within the prescribed time limit, the employee shall be deemed to have opted for the retention of the benefits already received by him would never come into play. It is well settled principle of interpretation of statute that it is incumbent upon the Court to avoid a construction, if reasonably permissible on the language, which will render a part of the statute devoid of any meaning or application. The Courts always presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intent is that every part of the statute should have effect. The legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the Legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the staute. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh Ninth Edition page 68) ”
5 Cr.M.P. No. 1913 of 2015
“55A. General safety of buildings, structures, plants, machinery, etc. - (1) No building, wall, chimney, bridge, tunnel, drain, road gallery, passage, walkway or gage-way, ladder, stair-case, ramp floor, platform, staging, scaffolding or any other structure of bricks, masonary, cement, concrete, steel or any other material whether of a permanent or temporary character shall be constructed, situated, maintained or allowed to remain or be used in a factory and no machine, plant, equipment including electric lines, wiring, fitting and apparatus [apparatus as defined in clause (c) of rule 2 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 made under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910], shall be constructed, provided, situated, maintained or allowed to be used or operated in a factory, in such manner as may, or is likely to, cause any accident or any bodily injury.
(3) No materials, articles or equipments shall be kept stacked or stored in such manner as may or is likely to cause any accident or any bodily injury. ”
11. In the case in hand, the Factory Inspector alleged that the occurrence took place because the owner of the van allowed to drive the van in reverse direction on a narrow approach road without a mirror especially on the left side of the van, but how the petitioner was held responsible for the such occurrence, has not been disclosed in the complaint and enquiry as no proper enquiry was conducted.
12. Sections 97 and 111 of the Factories Act also provides about the offence by the workers and obligations of the workers, which are
6
Cr.M.P. No. 1913 of 2015
quoted hereunder:-
111. Obligations of workers.—(1) No worker in a factory—
13. From a bare reading of these two provisions of the Factories Act, it is crystal clear that the scheme of the Factories Act is there, at the first instance the occupier and Manager must be prosecuted in terms of Section 92 of the Act, however, they may seek exemption under Section 101 of the said Act. Such interpretation would render the provisions of Sections 97 and 111 of the Act invalid. It is well settled principle of interpretation of the statute that it is incumbent upon the Court to avoid a construction, if reasonably permissible on the language, which will render a part of the statute devoid of any meaning or application, which has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Visitors AMU and Ors. (supra) .
14. There is no specific violation of any provision of the Act or the Rules in the complaint and in absence of such illegal act or omission to fasten the
7
Cr.M.P. No. 1913 of 2015
Occupier and Manager on the strength of the alleged contravention of the general duties would be a dangerous proposition of law that too when the petitioner was not occupier, as disclosed in Form No.17-A under the Act.
15. On perusal of the complaint, it transpires that there is no material on record to prima facie suggest that the petitioner was Occupier or Manager and in any manner she was held responsible for the unfortunate accident. Sections 97 and 111 of the Factories Act was not looked into by the Inspector, as it was admitted in the complaint itself that the workman concerned was in a hurry to finish the job as soon as possible so that he can go to his house and drop his daughter to the examination centre and he was giving direction to the driver on the rear side of the vehicle dangerous protruding his head out of the vehicle. Thus, it is an admitted fact that the deceased on his own acted casually. No case is made out against the petitioner in terms of the Factories Act and in view of the judgment rendered in the case of J.K. Industries Ltd. (supra) , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rightly come to the conclusion that mens rea is not the necessity in invoking the provisions of the Factories Act. In that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court was examining the certain Sections of the Factories Act, which are not under challenge in this case. Sections 97 and 111 have been ignored by the Factory Inspector while submitting the report and at the time of filing the complaint.
16. Earlier the petitioner has moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.1723 of 2013, which was allowed vide order dated 20.08.2014 and the cognizance order was quashed and the court below was directed to pass the order afresh, in accordance with law and after application of judicial mind. Pursuant thereto impugned cognizance order has been passed. In the fresh
8 Cr.M.P. No. 1913 of 2015
cognizance order also, it has not been disclosed how the petitioner is the Occupier. Sections 97 and 111 of the Factories Act have also not been discussed.
17. In view of the above reasons and analysis, entire criminal prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 18.05.2015 in connection with G.O. No.100/12 pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela is, hereby, set aside.
18. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
19. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.
20. Interim order dated 26.07.2017 stands vacated.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Ajay/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an occupier under the Factories Act, 1948 can be held liable for an accident occurring outside factory premises.
Whether Sections 97 and 111 of the Factories Act provide a defense to an occupier when the accident was caused by the negligence of a worker.
Whether the complaint sufficiently supported the prosecution of the petitioner who was not the occupier.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories and BoilersReferred¶26
J.K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers, (1996) 6 SCC 665 · Who else cites this
Sarav Investment and Financial Consultancy (P) Ltd. v. Lloyds Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident FundReferred¶26
Sarav Investment and Financial Consultancy (P) Ltd. v. Lloyds Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund, (2007) 14 SCC 753
Visitor AMU and Ors. v. K.S. MisraRelied on¶32
Visitor AMU and Ors. v. K.S. Misra, (2007) 8 SCC 593 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Mrs. Harjot Kaur
The State of Jharkhand
The Factory Inspector, Saraikela-Kharsawan
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
