JOHN DOUGLAS KEITH BROWN versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 639 · Decided: 17-12-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAGHUBAR DAYAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
JOHN DOUGLAS KEITH BROWN 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
December 17, 1964 
[RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.] 
Fuctories Act (63 of 1948), ss. 52 and 92-Scope of-Violation by 
manager-If "occupier" liable. 
The appellant was an "occupi.:r", as defined in s. 20(n) of the Fac-
tories Act, of certain mills. 
The manager of the mills contravened the 
provi<ions of s. 52 of the Act under which, whenever workers are required 
to work on a weekly holiday, specific permission of the Chief Inspector 
of Factories in respect of each and every worker who is required to 
work on such a day should be obtained. Though the manager apprised 
the appellant of what he was proposing to do, the appellant took 
no 
1teps to restrain him from putting into operation a new schedule of work 
which was in violation of s. 52. The appellant was charged with an 
offence under •. 92 read with s. 52 of the Act and convicted. The con-
viction was confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal and by the High 
Court in Revision. 
In appeal to the Supreme Court it was contended 
that under s. 52(i) (b)(i), the duty was cast upon the manager to give 
notice to the appropriate authority, of a change in the weekly holiday, 
and the omission of the manager to give such notice would not render 
the occupier vicariously liable. 
HELD : The opening word! of the section indicate a prohibition from 
requiring or permitting an adult worker to work in a factory on the first 
day of the week. Thia prohibition is general and is not confined to a mana-
E 
ger. The prohibition is lifted if steps are taken under els. (a) and (b). 
Under cl. (b) the manager could give and display a notice only for 
the purpose of securing an 
exemption from 
the prohibition and 
therefore it does not impooe a positive duty on the manager to do some-
thing. It follows that, where something was done in breach of the pro-
hibition enacted by s. 52(!), both the manager and the "occupier" would 
be liable. [641 E-G] 
F 
G 
Moreover, what the manager did was done with the full knowledge 
and possibly with the consent of the appellant. The "occupier" having 
actual knowledge that the manager was doing something which was not 
within the purview of s. 52(1) els. (a) and (b), he must be held guilty 
of the contravention of the provisions of the sections. [644 E] 
State Government of Madhya Pradesh v. Magan Bhai Desaibhai, 
A.LR. (1954) Nag. 41, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 66 
of 1962. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 11, 1961 
of the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 362 of 
1961. 
H 
J. N. Ghosh, Nutbehari Mukherjee and Sukumar Ghose, for the 
appellant. 
K. B. Bagchi, B· N· Kirpal for P. K. Bose, for the respondent. 
540 
SUPRl!Mlt 
COUltT 
kBPORTS 
[1965] 2 S.C.ll. 
The Judgment of the Coun was delivered by 
A 
Mudholkar, J. The only point urged in this appeal from a 
decision of the High Court at Calcutta is whether the occupier of a 
factory is liable to penalty under s. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 
(hereafter referred to as the Act) for the contravention of the 
provisions of s. 52 of the Act. 
B 
The appellant is the Managing Director of Jardine Henderson 
Ltd., Calcutta, who are the managing agents of the Howrah Milla 
Co. Ltd., of Ramkristopur, District Howrah and as such "occupiers" 
of the Mills within the definition of the term contained in s. 2(n) 
of the Act. One J. P. Bell was the Manager of the Mills in June, 
1957. 
Both the appellant and Bell were charged with an offence 
C 
under s. 92 of the Act read with s. 52. It would appear, however, 
that during the pendency of the trial the Manager was permitted 
to proceed to England and the prosecution continued against the 
appellant alone. 
He was convicted of the offence and sentenced 
to pay a fine of Rs. 400/- by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 
0 
Howrah. . His appeal therefrom was dismissed by the Sessions 
Judge, Howrah. 
Similarly, the revision application preferred by 
him before the High Court was also dismissed. 
However, the 
High Court granted him a certificate to the effect that the case 
was fit for appeal to this Coun and that is how the matter baa 
come up before us. 
E 
Reliance was placed before us on behalf of the appellant upon 
the decision in State Government of Madhya Pradesh v. Magan-
bhai Deraibhai (') to which I was a party in support of the con-
tention that where a duty is cast upon a Manager of a factory to 
perform a p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.