ORDER P.N. Bakshi, J. - The Applicant has been convicted for an offence u/s 62 of the Factories Act read with Rule 78 of the U.P. Factories Rules and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- by the SDM, Etmadpur, Ferozabad, Agra. He filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Agra which was dismissed on 1-10-1970. Hence this revision. 2. The case against the Applicant is that he did not maintain a proper attendance register of his employees in his factory. The Inspector of factories found on inspection that two women and three men worked in the factory but their names had not been mentioned in the attendance, register. This was against the rules; hence he was prosecuted on a complaint filed by the inspector of factories. 3. The courts below after consideration of the evidence on the record have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the Applicant has not maintained a proper attendance register inasmuch as he has not recorded the names of all the employees therein who were found working at the premises on the date of the inspection by the factory inspector. This is a finding of fact which cannot be assailed in revision. 4. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has contended that Sri V.N. Agarwal who filed a complaint in the present case was not authorised to do so. He has relied upon Sections 8 and 9 of the Factories Act which runs thus: Section 8 (1). The State Govt. may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint such persons as possess the prescribed qualification to be inspectors for the purposes of this Act and may assign to them Such local limits as it may think fit. 8 (4). Every DM shall be an Inspector for his district. (5) The State Govt. may also, by notification as aforesaid, appoint such public officers as it thinks fit to be Addl. Inspectors for all or any of the purposes of this Act within such local limits as it may assign to them respectively. (6) In any area where there are more Inspectors than one the State Govt. may, by notification as aforesaid, declare the powers which sue Inspectors shall respectively exercise and the Inspector to whom the prescribe d notices are to be sent. (6) In any area where there are more Inspectors than one the State Govt. may, by notification as aforesaid, declare the powers which sue Inspectors shall respectively exercise and the Inspector to whom the prescribe d notices are to be sent. Section 9 Powers of Inspectors :--Subject to any rules made in this behalf, an Inspector may, within the local limits for which he is appointed. 9 (c). Exercise such other powers as may be prescribed for carrying out the purposes of this Act. 5. Relying on these two sections learned Counsel for the Applicant contends that it is imperative for the Govt. to issue notification appointing an Inspector of factories for specific local area. He contends that the notification itself must assign the local limits within which the Inspector is to function. That having not been done in this case, the appointment of Sri V.N. Agarwal is illegal. 6. It appears front the perusal of the record that t le Govt. had issued a notification which was published on page 228 of the official publication of the Factories Act and the U.P. Factory Rules 1960 as amended upto September 1968 which runs thus: In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Factories Act, 1948, the Governor has been pleased to appoint Sri V.N. Agarwal to be Inspector of Factories, U.P. for the whole of the State. 7. It has also been mentioned in para 1 of the counter affidavit filed by Sri V.N. Agarwal in this Court that as Inspector of factories, he was posted in "Agra region" at the relevant time when the prosecution against the present accused-Applicant was lodged. It is thus clear that Sri V.N. Agarwal even though he was appointed as Inspector of factories for the whole of State of U.P. he was exercising his powers on the relevant dare in Agra region. It is important to note that in the rejoinder affidavit filed by Mahabir Prasad Jain, it is not denied that Sri V.N. Agarwal was posted in the Agra region on the relevant date. 8. From a perusal of Section 8 if the Factories Act 'it is apparent that the only requirement of that section it that the State Govt. should notify in the official gazette the name of the person who is appointed as Inspector of Factories for carrying out the purposes of the Act. 8. From a perusal of Section 8 if the Factories Act 'it is apparent that the only requirement of that section it that the State Govt. should notify in the official gazette the name of the person who is appointed as Inspector of Factories for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The use of the word may in the aforesaid Section 8 clearly gives a discretion to the State Govt. to assign to the factory inspector, duties which may be carried out by him within any particular local limits. It is not mandatory that the order of appointment itself should describe the local limits of his jurisdiction. It is enough if the notification declares that he is appointed as a factory inspector. Whether he will exercise jurisdiction in the entire State of U.P. or a limited local area is entirely within the discretion of the State Govt. In the present case, as mentioned above by virtue of the notification Sri V.N. Agarwal has been appointed as Inspector of Factories for the whole of the State of U.P. As such it cannot be said that he has no jurisdiction to function or to be more specific to launch a prosecution against the accused Applicant; more so, when it is also established from the record that on the relevant date when the prosecution against the accused was launched, he was posted at Agra region and was performing his duties in that region. I, therefore do not agree with the submission made by learned Counsel for the Applicant that Sri V.N. Agarwal was not competent to file a complaint against the Applicant for his prosecution for breach of the provisions of the Factories Act. 9. Learned Counsel for the Applicant has relied upon a case State v. Kailash Chandra Bhargava 1970 AWR 751 . That was the case under, the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1962. The facts of that case were different to the facts of the present case and the relevant wordings of Sections 29 and 30 of the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 1962 were also different to those contained in Section 8 of the Factories Act. It is an unassailable principle of interpretation of statutes that when the language of the section is plain and unambiguous, it has got to be given its ordinary and natural meaning. It is an unassailable principle of interpretation of statutes that when the language of the section is plain and unambiguous, it has got to be given its ordinary and natural meaning. It is, therefore; not necessary to compare the contemporary Acts for the purpose of interpreting section which is clear and explicit. In my opinion there is no ambiguity in Section 8 of the Factories Act which need be clarified or explained by reference to other provisions of other Acts. Section 8 explicitly empowers the State Govt. to appoint a factory inspector and gives a wide discretion to the Govt. if it so chooses to assign to him a local limit for the exercise of his jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in the contention alleged by learned Counsel for the Applicant. u/s 105(1) of the Factories Act "No court shall take cognizance under this Act except on complaint by, or with the previous sanction in writing of an Inspector." 10. In the present case the complaint has been filed by Sri V.N. Agarwal who has been validly appointed as an Inspector of factories and was discharging his duties in Agra region on the relevant date. As such I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the present complaint having been lodged by Sri V.N. Agarwal. 11. In the result, therefore, this application in revision is dismissed. The order of conviction recorded by the courts below is maintained as also the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed upon him. The amount of fine shall be paid by the Applicant within three months from today. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.