Telangana High Court
Sri. Pradeep Vasant Dhobale vs The State Of Telangana on 7 June, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5100 & 5107 OF 2019
COMMON ORDER:
The Criminal Petition No.5100 of 2019 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.94 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam, Kothagudem District. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 41-B, 41-C, 112 of the Factories Act, 1948 and Rules 61 (SC) B of the Factories Rules, Section 47 of the Factories Act, and Rule 72 of the Factories Rules, Section 48 of the Factories Act and Rule 73 of the Factories Rules.
2. The Criminal Petition No.5107 of 2019 is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.96 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam, Kothagudem District. The offences alleged against them are under Section 6 of the Factories Act, 1948 and 2 Rule 3-A (6) of the Factories Rules, Section 40 of the Factories Act, and Section 40-B of the Factories Act and Rule 61-A of the Factories Rules.
3. Heard Sri.G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri.M.Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the first petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri.N.Ramachander Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri.M.Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing for second petitioner/accused No.2, and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Lis involved in both the Criminal Petitions, parties are common and therefore, the same are considered together.
5. In S.T.C.No.94 of 2015 the allegations leveled against the petitioners herein as follows:
i. The Joint Chief Inspector of Factories along with Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Warangal, and Inspector of Factories, Khammam have conducted inspection of ITC Limited on 27-12-2013 and 28-12-2013. They found irregularities and 3 asked the petitioners to comply with the provisions of law by clearing those irregularities.
ii. During the Inspection, they have found that the petitioners herein have not complied with provisions of Factories Act and Rules i.e., at present only three Medical Officers are recruited. They have to recruit 3 more Medical Officers with immediate effect. At present one rest room is constructed which is inadequate to accommodate the regular workers. They have to construct a new rest shed for the use of the workers with facilities as mentioned in the rules. There is no rest shed for use of the contract workers, which is irregular. They have to construct rest shed to the contract workers with the facilities as per rules, and take prior permission from the Director of Factories, A.P., Hyderabad for the construction of above said shed. Though there are more than thirty women workers are working in the factory, but Form No.2 discloses only 8 women workers. They have to provide crèche for the 4 use of children and take approval to the crèche building from the Director of Factories, A.P., Hyderabad.
6. Thus according to the second respondent, the petitioners have not complied with above said provisions and rules of the Act, and therefore they are liable for punishment under Section 92 of the Factories Act.
7. In S.T.C.No.96 of 2015 the allegations leveled against the petitioners herein as follows:
i. The Joint Chief Inspector of Factories along with Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Warangal, and Inspector of Factories, Khammam have conducted inspection of ITC Limited (PB & SP Division) Unit, Bhadrachalam, on 27-12-2013 and 28- 12-2013.
ii. During the Inspection, they have found that the petitioners herein have failed to provide roof ventilator over the compressor house at Oxygen plant and failed to provide second set of windows to the compressor shed as its height is more 5 than 6 mts.,. One lean to roof shed is constructed abutting compound wall at west side of the chipping house and using as lockers room + dining room + mechanical fitter room + knifes room + two mechanical rooms + jishu hosen gallery room. Therefore, they directed that no room shall be allowed to construct abutting compound wall. Further they stated that they shall remove rooms immediately. They stated that at present only three safety officers are recruited, recruit two more safety officers with immediate effect.
8. Thus according to the second respondent, the petitioners have not complied with above said provisions and rules of the Act, and therefore they are liable for punishment under Section 92 of the Factories Act.
9. Both Sri.G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri.M.Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the first petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri.N.Ramachander Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri.M.Pratap Singh, 6 learned Counsel appearing for second petitioner/accused No.2, in both Criminal Petitions would submit that an Inspection was conducted by Joint Chief Inspector of Factories along with Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, Warangal, and Inspector of Factories, Khammam of ITC Limited, on 27-12-2013 and 28-12- 2013.
10. Based on the said Inspection, an Inspection Order/Notice No.B/38284/2014 dated 17-01-2014 was issued by Joint Chief Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad. On the strength of the said Order, two notices i.e., Notice dated 17-01- 2014 directing compliance of the Inspection Order dated 17-01- 2014 and Showcause notice dated 17-01-2014 as to why prosecution should not be initiated for non-compliance, were served on the petitioners. The first petitioner/accused No.1 had submitted various compliance letters including letter dated 11-02-2014 seeking time till 31-12-2014 to comply with some of the observations in the Inspection Report. Pursuant to the said request the Director of Factories vide Proceedings 7 Lr.No.B1/668/2016 dated 31-05-2014 granted time upto 31-12- 2014 for compliance. The said facts are not considered by the Inspector of Factories while filing the complaints both dated 12- 09-2014.
11. In fact, the Inspector of Factories has not even filed the said proceedings/letters submitted by the first petitioner and issued by Director of Factories. Therefore, the present proceedings are barred by Section 106 of Factories Act.
12. They would further submit that the Inspector of Factories, has arrayed ITC Limited, as accused and the present proceedings were filed against the first petitioner/occupier and second petitioner/Manager of ITC Limited., both are not liable vicariously. Therefore, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.94 of 2015 and S.T.C.No.96 of 2015 against the petitioners cannot go on and they are liable to be quashed. The Inspector of Factories has not considered the complaints made by ITC Limited., while filing the complaints. Therefore, both the petitioners have not 8 committed any offence under Section 92 of Factories Act, as alleged. First petitioner/occupier of ITC Limited has retired from the organization and he is not working in the company in any role. The second petitioner being Manager of the Company, is not responsible for the above said alleged violations. With the above submissions, they sought to quash the above two complaints in S.T.C.No.94 of 2015 and S.T.C.No.96 of 2015.
13. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners in both Criminal Petitions, and the defences taken by the petitioners are triable issues and the same cannot be considered in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners, in both Criminal Petitions, have to face trial before the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to consider the defences, instead of doing so, they have filed the present Criminal Petitions to quash the above proceedings. With the 9 above submissions, he sought to dismiss both the Criminal Petitions.
14. In view of the above submissions, it is relevant to note that there is no dispute that the premises of ITC Limited (PB & SP Division) Unit, Bhadrachalam, Kothagudem District was inspected by above said Officials on 27-12-2013 and 28-12- 2013. Pursuant to the above said Inspection, an Inspection Order/Notice No.B/38284/2014 dated 17-01-2014 was issued by Joint Chief Inspector of Factories, Hyderabad, stating that during inspection they have noticed certain violations by the petitioners herein. Therefore, he has requested the first petitioner/accused No.1 to comply the same and send compliance report within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the said notice. He has annexed violations.
15. A Showcause notice dated 17-01-2014 was issued to both petitioners herein pointing out above said violations and both the petitioners were requested to submit explanation 10 within a week from the date of receipt of said notice. The petitioners have submitted explanation dated 11-02-2014 to the notice dated 17-01-2014. Further with respect to the Inspection Order dated 17-01-2014, on 05-02-2014 the first petitioner requested the Director of Factories to grant time for recruiting two Safety Officers under Sections 40 and two more Medical Officers under Sections 41-B, 41-C and 112 read with Rule 61 (SC) B up to 30-09-2014.
16. It is further said that as part of mill expansion, he has ensured extension of new rest shed for the use of workers as per the provision of law. Thus with the said reasons, he sought extension of time till 31-12-2014. Second petitioner has requested the Joint Chief Inspector of Factories-I, Hyderabad to drop further proceedings and to give time for personal hearing.
17. It is also relevant to note that vide Letter No.B1/668/2014 dated 31-05-2014 the Director of Factories, Hyderabad considered the request made by the petitioners with 11 regard to the granting of time upto 31-12-2014 and he has requested the petitioners to comply with the violations pointed out during Inspection and submit compliance report on or before 31-12-2014.
18. It is also relevant to note that vide Letter dated 04- 02-2014 the second petitioner has requested informing the Joint Chief Inspector of Factories-I, Office of Director of Factories, Hyderabad with regard to the compliance of certain violations pointed out during inspection. Vide Letter dated 30-01-2014, the Chief Operating Officer of ITC Limited., submitted Challan for approval of plans of asbuilt layout drawings of PM#7, Additional Installations of Debarker, Belt Conveyor in Chipper Plant and Extension of Canteen Dining Hall, in Form No.1.
19. Vide Letter dated 14-02-2014 the second respondent has informed to the Joint Chief Inspector of Factories-I, Office of Director of Factories, Hyderabad about conducting of Hydraulic test for the pressure vessels in the year 2012-2013 and 12 annexed copies of reports. Letter dated 03-04-2014 the second petitioner has informed the Director of Factories-I about appointment of Chief Safety Officer by duly including the copies of Orders.
20. In the complaint which was filed on 12-09-2014 the said facts were considered by the Inspector of Factories and the said documents are annexed along with complaint.
21. In view of the said rival submissions, it is relevant to note that Section 106 of Factories Act, which deals with the question of prosecution which is as follows:
"Section 106 in The Factories Act, 1948: Limitation of prosecutions.--No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless complaint thereof is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector: Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an Inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the 13 offence is alleged to have been committed.
1[Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,--
(a) in the case of a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the offence continues;
(b) where for the performance of any act time is granted or extended on an application made by the occupier or manager of a factory, the period of limitation shall be computed from the date on which the time so granted or extended expired.
22. As per the above said proviso, limitation shall be computed from the date on which the time so granted or extended expired.
23. As stated supra, the Directors of Factories, Hyderabad vide Proceedings dated 31-05-2014 granted time for compliance till 31-12-2014. He has directed the petitioners to comply with the violations pointed out by 31-12-2014 and file compliance report. The limitation for prosecution starts from 01-01-2015. Whereas the Inspector of Factories has filed the present complaints on 12-09-2014 itself, as discussed supra, 14 there is no reference with regard to the proceedings. Thus the complaints are barred by limitation as per Section 106 of Factories Act, 1948.
24. The proceedings in S.T.C.No.94 of 2015 and S.T.C.No.96 of 2015 are liable to be quashed only on that ground alone. However, a perusal of complaints would reveal that in both S.T.C.No.94 of 2015 and S.T.C.No.96 of 2015, the Inspector of Factories stated that there are only three Medical Officers are recruited. He directed that 3 more Medical Officers are to be recruited with immediate effect. Furthermore he observed that at present one rest room is constructed which is inadequate to accommodate the regular workers. He directed construction of a new rest shed for the use of the workers and contract workers with facilities as mentioned in the rules and take prior permission from the Director of Factories, A.P., Hyderabad for the construction of above said shed; and also directed to recruit two more safety officers with immediate effect.
15
25. Thus the said complaints are in the nature of notice requesting the petitioners to comply the same, as stated supra, the petitioners have sought time for compliance of the same till 31-12-2014 and the same was considered, without waiting for the said period, the Inspector of Factories, Khammam has lodged the said complaints on 12-09-2014 itself. The above said principle was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in J.J.Irani Vs. State of Jharkand1 referring to its Judgments with regard to complaints filed in violation of Section 106 of Factories Act, is liable to be quashed.
26. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and above discussion, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.94 of 2015 and S.T.C.No.96 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam, Kothagudem District, are liable to be quashed.
1 2014 (1) SSC 813 16
27. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are allowed and the proceedings in S.T.C.No.94 of 2015 and S.T.C.No.96 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam, Kothagudem District, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 07-06-2022 KHRM 17 18 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5100 & 5107 OF 2019 07-06-2022 KHRM