LexMANEKLAL JINABHAJ KOT versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
A
MANEKLAL JINABHAJ KOT
I'.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
January 30, 1967
B
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, S. M. SJKRI AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J
c
r
E
F
G
H
Factories Act, (63 of 1948) s. 101-Mancgef or occupier-When can
be absolved from liability.
The appellant, who was the manager of a factory had i~ued notices
warning the heads of various departments in the factory to strictly comply
with the provisions o{ the Factories Act and also that there should be no
double employment. Certain workers were found
working in a
third
shift contrary to the notice of periods displayed in the factory. A com·
plaint was filed against the appellant for contravention of s. 63 of the Act.
On receiving the summons, he filed in his tum a complaint under s. 101,
impleading as accused the salesman and supervisor as actual offenders. The
evidence showed that the appellant was not present when the offence was
committed, that the salesman and oupervisor were incharge of the depart·
ment, that the appellant did not allow any worker to work in the third
shift, on the material date, that he did not re.:eive any information from
the salesman and the supervioor about their proposal to have a third shift
on that date, that he came to know about the occurrence the next day, and
that,
immediately thereafter,
he took action against the salesman and
supervisor. The salesman and the supervisor pleaded guilty to the charge
The trial Court held that the offence had taken place with the consent,
knowledge or connivance of the appellant, from the fact that the wages
were paid by the Mill to those workers, and convicted the appellant and
discharged the salesman and supervisor.
The High Court confirmed the
order of the trial Court.
Jn appeal to this Court :
HELD : The appellant
should be discharged and the salesman and
supervisor should be convicted.
Under s. 101, when the manager or occupier is charged \\'ith an offence~
he is entitled to make a complaint, in his own turn, to establish facts
mentioned in the said section, viz,., (i) that he bas uoed due diligence to
enforce the e<ecution of the Act, and (ii) that the alleged actual offenders
committed the offence in question without his consent, knowledge or con-
nivance. If he is able to establish that it was such other person, who has
committed an offence, and satisfies the other requirements of the said
section, the manager or occupier is absolved from all liability. [516 F-H;
517 DJ
The facts clearly established that the salesman and supervisor pleaded
guilty to the oharge, that the appellant had used due diligence to enforce
the execution of the Act, and that the offence was committed by the sales-
man and supervisor without the connivance,. knowledge or consent of the
appellant.
State of Gujarat v. Koinsara Mani/al Bhik/wlal [1964] 7 S.C.R. 656,
followed.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeals Nos.
198-205 of 1964.
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1967] 2 s.c.R.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated
February 4, 1964, of the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeals
Nos. 135-138 of 1962 and Criminal Revision Applications 176-179
of 1963.
Purshottam Trlcwndas and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the appellant
(in all the appeals).
Y. L. Teneja, S. P. Nayyar and R. H. Dhebar, for respondent
No. I (in all the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vaidialingam, J. These appeals, by special leave, are directed
against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, confirming the
conviction, by the City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, of the appellant of
an offence under s. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Act 63 of 1948)
(hereinafter called the Act), for breach of s. 63 of the said Act, and
cancelling a rule issued by it to respondents 2 and 3, herein, to
show cause against the order of discharge passed by the trial Court.
The appellant was the Manager of the Saranpur Cotton Ma-
nufacturing Co. Ltd., Mill No. 2. The Inspector of Factories,
Ahmedabad, found, on a visit to the factory concerned, at 3 a.m.
on May 26, 1961, certain workers actually working in the stamping
department, at that time. According to the register of workers,
maintained by the factory, in the form of attendance register,
those workers belonged to Group II, Relay II.
According
to the notice of periods of work, displayed in the factory, the period
of work for Group II, Relay II, was from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., and from
8.30 p.m. to 1.00. a.m. According to tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.