Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Mr. A. Goutam Datta vs ) State By The Inspector Of Factories on 4 April, 2017

R.Krishnan vs / on 21 September, 2021

10.On perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioners are Manager and Occupier of Tube Investments of India Ltd.,. It is not disputed that the accident was happened on 28.06.2021, in that accident, worker namely Mr.Arumugam S/o Arumugaswamy, while working on a 63 ton Press, met with serious accident. Thereafter, on 06.07.2021, the inspection took place and noticed contraventions, in consequence, a show cause notice dated 19.07.2021 was issued to the Occupier and the Manager of the company during the above inspection. For that show cause notice, a reply has been given on 24.07.2021, thereafter, re-inspection was done on 31.08.2021 and found the same irregularities, hence, after obtaining sanction dated 14.09.2021, the impugned complaint has been filed on 22.09.2021. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, a non consideration of the explanation of the petitioners submitted to the show cause notice, the complaint was silent on this aspect, it reflects the non application of mind in filing the criminal complaint. Hence, the criminal complaint is liable to be quashed. To support his argument, the learned counsel heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dayle De'souza Vs. Government of India Through Deputy Chief Page 10 of 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.23468 & 23500 of 2021 Labour Commissioner (C) and another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine 1012. Further, the learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Inspector of Factories, Vellore v. Showa Engineering Ltd., Shollinghur reported in 2007 (4) LLN 828 which was followed by this Court in another case in A.Goutam Datta V. The State reported in (2017) SCC OnLine Mad 18593. The learned counsel further submitted that an appeal opportunity prescribed in terms of Section 107 of the Factories Act, 1948 was denied to the petitioners. Therefore, on this ground, the criminal complaints are liable to be quashed.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Sivagnanam - Full Document

R.Kishore Kumar vs The Chief Inspector Of Factories on 1 October, 2020

8.In another judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.1287 to 1293 of 2012 in the case of A.Gowtam Datta vs. State by the Inspector of Factories and another agreed with the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in an earlier judgment to the effect that non-consideration of the reply or explanation offered by the factory/company would amount to denial of an opportunity for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Factories Act. The learned 10/16 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.(MD).No.10384 of 2009 Judge observed that any prosecution launched in denial of right of appeal would have to be nipped in the bud.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S S Sundar - Full Document
1