Judgment 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent the case is being disposed of at the time of admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner in this writ application is a Public Limited Company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing iron and steel products, which is being carried on at the petitioners steel plant at Jamshedpur. It is not disputed the said Steel Plant being a "factory" within the meaning of the Factory Act and the Rules made thereunder, provisions of the said Act and Rules are applicable to the Factory of the petitioner. 3. Sec. 40-B of the Factories Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) requires the petitioner to appoint Safety Officers. The said provision also lays down that the State Government by notification in the official Gazette may direct employment of such number of Safety Officers as may be specified in that notification. 4. Rule 62-B of the Bihar Factories Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provides for qualification, conditions of service of the safety officers as also the minimum number of Safety Officers to be employed by the occupier of any factory. 5. It appears that, by notification dated 13th February, 1989 (Annexure-2) the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 40-B of the Act, 1948, was pleased to notify that the occupiers of factories specified in the Schedules A and B1 annexed thereto shall appoint Safety Officers in their factories in such number as indicated against each of them in Column 5 of the Schedules A and B. In Schedule A of the said notification the name of the petitioner-company has been shown against Serial No.1 requiring to appoint 31 numbers of Safety Officers. The Inspector of Factories, Jamshedpur Circle No.1, Jamshedpur by his letter dated the 10th September, 1993, informed the petitioner-company that upon examination and verification it was found that only 20 qualified officers, whose names were enclosed and marked as Annexure 1 to the said letter, had been employed in the factory and a few others who were although designated as Safety Officers did not possess the qualification as envisaged under Sec. 408 of the Act read with Rule 62 of the Bihar Factories Rules and as such the petitioner had contravened the aforesaid provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 6. 6. In the present writ application the petitioner-company prays for quashing of the said letter dated 10th September, 1993, on the ground that the allegations made against the petitioner-company are baseless inasmuch as there has been a compliance of the provisions of the Act and the Rules in respect of appointment of Safety Officers by the petitioner and, therefore, there was no justification for threatening the petitioner with legal action for the alleged default. It may be observed at this stage that the petitioner, in the writ application, has not prayed for quashing of the notification dated 13th February, 1989; issued by the Inspector of Factories, Jamshedpur Circle No. 1, Jamshedpur. 7. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relying upon the provisions of Rule 62(5)(a) of the Rules submits that having regard to the total number of workers employed by the petitioner-company-i.e. 40, 702 the petitioner-company is required to employ only 23 Safety Officers besides one Chief Safety Officer, making a total number of 24, He submits that the requirement of 31 Safety Officers arises only if the total number of workers employed by the .petitioner-company is 58, 000 including the contractor(s) which is not the case so far and the petitioner-company is concerned. In view of he aforesaid factual position die learned Counsel submits the issuance of letter dated 10th September, 1993, by the inspector of Factories, Jamshedpur Circle No. 1, Jamshedpur, arid the allegations made against the petitioner-company are baseless as there has been a compliance of die provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder in respect of Safety Officers, by the petitioner and as such there is no justification for threatening the petitioner with legal action for the alleged default. The learned Counsel further relying upon the statements made in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents states that the aforesaid submission of his is also corroborated and supported by the statements made in Paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit wherein it has been admitted by the respondents that the requirement of the Safety Officers in the petitioner company is only 24 and, accordingly, he submits that the writ petition should be allowed by quashing the impugned letter dated the 10th September, 1993. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, has drawn our, attention to Paragraphs 12 and 14 of the writ application and submits that the statements made therein clearly show that the petitioner-company was fully aware that they are to employ more than 31 persons as Safety Officers in their factory as it is their admitted case that the petitioner had engaged 33 number of Safety Officers, details of which are also given in Paragraph 14 of the writ application. He further submits that after some of the Safety Officers had retired or had died, no new incumbent has been appointed in the said vacancies of the Safety Officers and, therefore, there has been non-compliance of. the requirement under the law and the petitioner-company having violated the mandatory provisions of the requirements of law, the issuance of the letter dated 10th September, 1993, is legal and valid. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials available on record. As observed earlier the notification dated 13th February, 1989, issued by the State Government requiting the petitioner-company to employ 31 Safety Officer in their factors has not been challenged by (he petitioner-company in this writ application .The aforesaid fact is further corroborated from the facts that the petitioner has stated in Paragraph 21 of the writ application that the petitioner has no intention whatsoever to violate the provisions of the Act; on the contrary, the petitioner is taking every possible step to comply with the requirements of the notifications. The aforesaid statements of facts made in the writ application amply prove and establish that the petitioner had no intention to challenge the legality an validity of the aforesaid notification in the present writ application. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we are of the opinion that after issuance of the aforesaid notification by the State Government the petitioner-company is required to employ 31 number of Safety Officers in their factory and if such numbers are not employed in the factory there would be a contravention of the provisions of Sec. 40-B of the Act. The letter dated 10th September, 1993, also shows that only 20 qualified officers were found after verification to have been employed in their factory as Safety Officers and a few others, though designated as Safety Officers, actually did not possess qualification as envisaged under Rules 62-B of the Rules. Accordingly, therefore, in our opinion, there has been contravention of he provisions of the Act as also Rule thereunder and Respondent No.1 was fully justified and competent to issue letter dated 10th September, 1993, which is impugned in the present writ application. 10. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that it has been the policy of the petitioner-company to select persons from amongst its own employees who have .had sufficient experience in working in the petitioners steel works and who were familiar with the steel making process, and possess degrees is Engineering ate, and, therefore, it is only reasonable for the respondent authorities to await the completion of formal training undergone by some of the Safety Officers in the petitioner factory although they may not possess requisite qualification as up-to-date. He further submits that the me petitioner is making every effort to ensure that ail Safety Officers in the Steel Plant... possess the prescribed qualification in industrial safety as required by Rule 62-B. In view of the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner it is apparent that the finding of the Inspector of Factories as recorded in his letter dated 10th September, 1993 (Annexure-T) to the fact that some of the officers employed as Safety Officers in the petitioner-factory did not possess the qualification as envisaged under the provisions is based on record, being their admitted position and, accordingly, contravention of the provisions of Rule 62-B of the Bihar Factories Rules in apparent therefrom. 11. As the counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the provisions of Sec. 40-B and Rule 62-B(5)(a) of the Rules in support of his submission that the petitioner-company is required to employ only 23 Safety Officers apart from one Chief Safety Officer making the total number of 24, It is necessary for us to deal with the said provisions as well. 12. A conjoint reading of Sec. 40-B with Rule 62-B of the Act and Rules, we find that having regard to the total number of workers employed .i.e. 40702, the petitioner-company may be required to. 12. A conjoint reading of Sec. 40-B with Rule 62-B of the Act and Rules, we find that having regard to the total number of workers employed .i.e. 40702, the petitioner-company may be required to. employ only 23 Safety Officers apart from one Chief Safety Officers making total number of 24 only. However, when we take into consideration the provisions of Sec. 40-B (1)(ii) it becomes amply clear that in a factory wherein any manufacturing process or operation is carried on, which process or operation involves any risk of bodily injury, poisoning or disease, or any other hazard to health, to the person employed in the factory, the State Government by notification may require the occupier of the factory to employ such number of Safety Officers as may be specified in that notification. In view of the aforesaid provisions of law and hi the present case the State Government having so notified that the petitioners company is required to employ 31 number of Safety Officers, keeping in view the fact that the factory being very hazardous process industries having Chemical Plant and Blast Furnace in our opinion the petitioners company is mandatorily liable to appoint Such numbers of Safety Officers in their factory, failing which they would become liable for contravention of provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. 13. Our attention has also been drawn to a decision of this Court of C.W.J.C. No. 6173 of 1992 (Manoj Kumar and Anr. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. ) disposed of on 18.3.1993 wherein it has been observed that there is no dispute that it is the statutory obligation on the part of the State and occupier of the factories, mentioned in Schedules A and B of the notification dated 13th February, 1989, to fill up all the posts of Safety Officers by qualified persons. ) disposed of on 18.3.1993 wherein it has been observed that there is no dispute that it is the statutory obligation on the part of the State and occupier of the factories, mentioned in Schedules A and B of the notification dated 13th February, 1989, to fill up all the posts of Safety Officers by qualified persons. In the aforesaid decision, this Court has further observed that even after almost three years have passed, various posts of Safety Officers in different factories have not been filled up by qualified candidates and the compliance of the statutory provisions as also the direction of the State Government in the notification dated 13th February, 1989 is the obligation of the occupier of the Factories to act accordingly, this Court has further mentioned that in order to avoid similar disaster which had occurred in the year 1984 in M/s Union Carbide, Bhopal, the management of the factories are required to take all precautionary measures including employing such persons who are qualified in the management of safety. In our opinion, the aforesaid observations of this Court squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. In view of the aforesaid findings, we find no merit in this writ application, and accordingly, it is dismissed. 15. We, however, also feel inclined to give further directions taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of duties cast on the petitioner-company to initiate the process of appointment of the balance number of qualified Safety Officers so as to comply with the requirement of the notification of appointing 31 Safety Officers in their factories within one month and complete the process thereof to appoint them within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the respondents would be at liberty to proceed against, the petitioner-company for contravention of the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder in accordance with law.