Dismissed

F.Gunapandian v. Deputy Director

Madras HC21 Oct 2024CRL OP/17671/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras entertained a Criminal Original Petition filed by a factory manager to quash proceedings under the Factories Act following a fatal accident involving a trainee. The Court held that the allegations required a detailed trial and that the cited precedents were distinguishable based on facts.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition and connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed.

F.Gunapandian Vs Deputy Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL O.P. No.17671 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 21.10.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr. Justice P.DHANABAL

¶6

Crl. O.P. No.17671 of 2022 and Crl. M.P. Nos.11050 and 11052 of 2022

¶7

F. Gunapandian S/o. D. Francis Manager - Wipro Enterprises Private Limited

¶8

... Petitioner / Accused

¶9

vs.

¶10

State represented by:- The Deputy Director, Inspector of Factories - 1, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District. .... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: The Criminal Original petition is filed under Section 482 of

¶12

Criminal Procedure Code to call for records pertaining to the proceedings

¶13

in C.C. No.12 of 2024 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram and to quash the same.

¶14

For petitioner : Mr. V. Karthick, Senior Advocate, Mr. Anand Gopalan.

¶15

For Respondent : Mrs. G.V. Kasthuri, Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. ORDER

¶16

1/12

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CRL O.P. No.17671 of 2022

¶19

The Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceeings in C.C. No.12 of 2024 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kancheepuram.

¶20

According to the petitioner, he is the Plant Manager of M/s.

¶21

Wipro Enterprises Private Limited, by virture of his designation, petitioner has been nominated as Manager of the factory. The petitioner has been prosecuted for the alleged violations of the provisions of the Factories Act. At the risk of the repetition, the company has been scrupulously following all the safety measures concerning employees of the factory. The plant used to conduct various safety oriented programs for the permanent workmen including trainees. In so far as the factory is concerned, it has a tie up with one BSA Corporation which used to sponsor NEEM trainees to the company which is meant for a period of 3 years. The NEEM trainees would in turn get trained under the permanent Staff. There are also shift Engineers in each shop who will man the shifts and supervise the employees. Besides the BSA Corporation who sponsors the NEEM trainees, would conduct orientation programs and

¶22

2/12

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

CRL O.P. No.17671 of 2022

¶25

instruct the trainees as to do's and dont's in the factory on periodical intervals.

¶26

2.1. While so, on 30.07.2021, one of the NEEM trainee namely Chandru while fixing the hydraulic Cylinder for carrying out testing, noticed leak in the adaptor and quick release coupling, attempted to tighten the coupling and, in the process, got hit by the machine and sustained injury which resulted in fatal. In fact the recourse was to pull the safety pull cord to bring down the pressure before attempting to tighten the quick release coupling. Unfortunately the trainee on account of his negligence and anxiety, attempted to fix the leakage without following standard operating procedures. In respect of the aforesaid incident, the office of the respondent was intimated and inspection was held on 31.07.2021. The respondent inspected the premises of factory on 31.07.2021 and thereafter sent a Show Cause Notice on 03.08.2021 calling for explanation by the petitioner as well as the occupier of the Factory. The petitioner also gave a reply refuting the various contraventions pointed out in the Show Cause Notice and it was brought 3/12

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

CRL O.P. No.17671 of 2022

¶29

to the notice of the respondent that most of the contraventions pointed out in the Show Cause notice have been complied and few recommendations made by the respondent have been taken note and since been rectified, that in respect of the accident which took place in the factory that there was no defects in the machinery and the concerned employee despite training, failed to follow the safety procedure which resulted in accident.

¶30

2.2. The respondent has not afforded a personal hearing to the

¶31

petitioner, if so, the facts referred to in the reply could have been placed for better consideration of the respondent and in the event of respondent being unsatisfied the petitioner has a right to appeal available under Section 107 of the Factories Act. In the present case, the petitioner has taken all endeavour to fulfill the compliances pointed out by the respondent in his Show Cause Notice. Being so, the complaint filed by the respondent is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore, the present complaint is liable to be quashed.

¶32

4/12

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

CRL O.P. No.17671 of 2022

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the respondent has filed a complaint as against the petitioner alleging that the provisions of Factories Act have not been followed in respect of safety measures taken by them. In fact, the institution of complaint is an abuse of process of law and power vested on the respondent under the provisions of Factories Act. In any event under the provisions of the Act, the complainant will have to necessarily elaborate the role of occupier / Manager in attributing negligence by the employer in order to fix the culpability. In the present case, a reading of the complaint does not disclose any such basic details or information, or allegations attributed to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the complaint deserves to be quashed on the sole ground as it is bereft of details. The basic averments that the petitioner is in charge of and responsible for the conduct of affairs of the company is singularly absent in the complaint. Except for making omnibus allegations, the complaint does not specify any role on the part of the petitioner. Equally the complaint is also silent about the negligence that would be attributed on the part of the petitioner. In the

¶36

5/12

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

CRL O.P. No.17671 of 2022

¶39

absence of sufficient averments made in the complaint, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶40

3.1. The learned counsel for the petitoner would further submit

¶41

that the complainant also failed to note that the incident occurred on account of negligence of deceased employee neither the petitioner nor its officials can be blamed for the unfortunate death happened to the employee. The trial Court erred in taking cognizance of the complaint more so when the reply of the petitioner has not been rejected by the respondent by a reasoned order. The complainant also failed to consider the reply of the petitioner that the contravention pointed out by the complainant in the complaint is either complied or rectified. Hence the complaint pending as against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied on judgment of Inspector of Factories vs. Showa Engineering Ltd., Solinghur reported in 2007 (4) LLN 828 and A. Gowtham Datta vs. State reported in 2017 SCC Online Mad 18593.

¶43

6/12

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

CRL O.P. No.17671 of 2022

¶46

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would contend that the complainant has issued Show Cause Notice and after Show Cause Notice, some of the defects have been complied and some of the defects have not been complied and therefore, the present complaint has been filed as against the petitioner. The petitioner has not followed the provisions of Factories Act and there are contraventions under Section 41 Rule 61E and Section 38 Rule 61(7)(a) of the Factories Act. The petitioner's premises was inspected by the concerned officials and on 31.07.2021, one Elangovan has conducted joint inspection. At that time, no machinery Plant or equipment shall be constructed, operated or situated or maintained in any Factory in such a manner as to cause risk of bodily injury. The deceased Chandru was required to work on the JCB Cylinder testing line for carrying out forward static test in the 4th cylinder of station 2 wherein safety fencing with door interlocking system for the entire station and also photo electric sensor inside the station were not provided so as to stop the testing process in case of any human intervention On 30.07.2021, the

¶47

7/12

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

CRL O.P. No.17671 of 2022

¶50

leakage in between the adopter and male quick release coupling (QRC) was carried out in such an unsafe manner which led to the death of Mr.

¶51

Chandru. Moreover, in the factory Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., SIPCOT Iindustrial Park, Irungattukottai, Kancheepuram District, during the joint inspection on 31.07.2021, it was found that, flammable liquids like paints and solvents were stored in large quantities (more than twenty liters) in the paint booth 1 & 2 areas. This is in contravention of the above Section and Rules. Therefore, they lodged the present complaint as against the petitioner and it needs elaborate trial. At this stage, this Court need not quash the proceedings and there are prima facie materials available. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶52

This Court heard both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.

¶53

According to the petitioner, they provided all the safety

¶54

measures to the factory. It is an admitted fact that on 30.07.2021, one of the NEEM trainee Chandru, while fixing the hydraulic cylinder for

¶55

8/12

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

CRL O.P. No.17671 of 2022

¶58

carrying out testing, noticed leak in the adaptor and quick release coupling, attempted to tighten the coupling and, in the process, got hit by the machine and sustained injuiry which resulted in fatal. According to the petitioner, the above said Chandru himself, without following the safety measures, done the act and thereby, he sustained injury and thereaftre died.

¶59

According to the respondent, on 31.07.2021, the inspection was conducted and at that time, they noticed that due to the heavy pressure developed inside the hydraulic cylinder and the hydraulic hose along with male quick release coupling (QRC) was detached from the hydraulic cylinder which hit the operator, Chandru, on his trunk. In fact, the worker Chandru was required to work on the JCB cylinder testing line for carrying out forward static test in the 4th cylinder of Station 2 wherein safety fencing with door interlocking system for the entire station and also photo electric sensor inside the station were not provided so as to stop the testing process in case of any human intervention, which is the contravention of the provisions of the Factory Act.

¶60

9/12

¶61

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

CRL O.P. No.17671 of 2022

¶63

The said fact and the other allegations levelled against the petitioner cannot be decided at this stage and it needs elaborate trial. Moreover, on the date of inspection, the authorities also found that flammable liquids like paints and solvents were stored in large quantitites (more than twenty liters) in the paint booth 1 and 2 areas. Therefore, it needs elaborate trial and at this stage, this Court cannot invoke the provisions under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.

¶64

As far as the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are concerned, they will not be applicable to the present facts of the case, because, in this case, according to the petitioner, they followed rules and regulations and provided safety measures as per the provisions of Factories Act, but according to the respondent / complainant, the petitioner has not provided adequate safety measures in the Factory as per rules. Therefore, it needs elaborate trial and hence this Court is of the opinion that this petition has no merits and deserves to be dismissed.

¶65

10/12

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

CRL O.P. No.17671 of 2022

¶68

Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. No

¶69

costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶70

21.10.2024 [1/2]

¶71

index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mjs

P.DHANABAL, J

mjs

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram

¶76

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 3. The Deputy Director, Inspector of Factories - 1, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District.

¶77

CRL. O.P. No.17671 of 2022

¶78

11/12

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶80

CRL O.P. No.17671 of 2022

¶81

21.10.2024

¶82

[1/2]

¶83

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶84

12/12

F.Gunapandian v. Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

F.Gunapandian v. Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neelakandan Vs the Inspector of Police

Sakkararaja Alamelu Mangai Vs the State Rep by

A.Surya Prakash Vs the State Rep by

Duraimani Vs State Rep by

K.Ramesh Vs the Inspector of Police

Saroja Vs the State Rep by