HEMANT MADHUSUDAN NERURKAR versus STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 1052 · Decided: 04-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 1052 
HEMANT MADHUSUDAN NERURKAR 
v. 
STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 442 of2016) 
MAY04,2016 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Factories Act, 1948 - s. 92 - General penalty for offences -
Inspection of factory premises - Contract labour engaged therein 
C - Certain defects pointed out - Cognizance against the owner and 
the manager - SLP before this Court - Petitioner removed all the 
defects pertaining to infrastructure - Subsequently, defects 
pertaining to contract labour also rectified - Thus. the order passed 
by the High Court, rejecting the prayer made by the appellants for 
quashing the proceedings initiated against them, does not call for 
D inle1:ference -As regards the punishment of appellants uls. 92, rather 
than requiring the appellants lo face a protracted trial, this Court 
may consider the appropriateness of imposing a reasonable 
p1111"hme11t 011 the appellants, by accepting the said violations,- In 
terms of the mandate of s. 92, to meet ends of justice, penalty of 
E 
F 
Rs.50,0001- each imposed on the appellants - Bihar Factaries Rules. 
1950. 
Delhi Cloth and General Mils Co. Ltd. vs. The Chief 
Co111111issioner, Delhi and others 1970 (2) SCR 
348:(1970) 2 SCC 172; J.K. Industries Limited and 
others vs. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers and 
others 1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 798: (1996) 6 SCC 665 -
referred to. 
1970 (2) SCR 348 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
referred to 
G 1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 798 
Para 5 
Para 11 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 442 of2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.03.2015 of the High Court 
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in an application under Section 482 of the Code 
H being Cr. M. P. No. 1987 of 2014. 
1052 
HEMANT MADHUSUDAN NERURKAR v. STATE OF 
1053 
JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER 
WITH 
A 
Cr!. A. No. 443of2016 
K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Abhijeet Sinha, Arijit Mazumdar, 
Abhinav Muketji, Shambo Nandy, Ad vs. for the Appellant. 
Tapesh Kumar Singh, Mohd. Waquas, Advs. forthe Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. I. Leave granted in both the 
special leave petitions. 
2. The controversy arising for adjudication emerges from the 
provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ' the 
Act'), and the Bihar Factories Rules, I 950 (as applicable to the State of 
Jharkhand). Insofar as the alleged violations committed by the appellants 
are concerned, a summary of the same stands recorded in paragraph 3 
of the impugned judgment, which is extracted hereunder: 
"3. It appears that an inspection carried out in the Growth Shop 
ofM/s Tata Steel Limited on 14.09.2013 and in course ofinspection, 
it was found that in Fabrication Yard No. I about 100 numbers of 
contract labourers engaged. However, on inquiry, it came to the 
notice of the Inspecting Team that though the Management took 
overtime service from them, but in terms of Factories Rules, 1950 
(Form-I OA) overtime slip not provided to them, which is violative 
of Rule I 03A of the Factories Rules, 1950. The Inspecting Team 
further found that the contract labourers were not provided with 
leave book in Form-15 of the Factories Rules, which is violative 
of Rule 88 ofJharkhand Factories Rules, 1950. It is further alleged 
that on inspection of canteen, the following shortcomings defected: 
(a) There is no partition for the female workers in the dining 
hall and service counter. 
(b) Doors and windows of the canteen are not fly proof. 
( c) Menu Chart, rate and the names of members Canteen 
Managing Committee has not disclosed on the board. 
(d) for washing of utensils no arrangement of hot water has 
been made." 
3. Based on the above allegations, cognizance was taken against 
the occupier- Heman! Madhusudan Nerurkar (the appellant in Criminal 
Appeal No. 442 of 2016 - arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 6410 of 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1054 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
2015), and the manager - Rupam Bhaduri ( the appellant in Criminal 
Appeal No. 443 of 2016 - arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 6406 of 
2015). 
4. Keeping in mind the apparently trivial issues, on which 
proceedings were taken out against the appellants, this Court on the first 
B 
date of hearing, i.e., on 14.08.2015, recorded the following order: 
"Heard Mr. K. V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel for the 
petitioner and Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel 
for the State of Jharkhand. 
Havi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.