S. K. MOOKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE present Revisional Application is directed against an order dated 16th July, 1990, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Labour Department, an appellate authority under Rule 7 (6), of the West Bengal Factories (Safety Officers) Rules 1978, dismissing the appeal preferred by the revisional petitioner against the termination of his service. The petitioner claims to be a Safety Officer of J. K. Synthetics Limited, Rishra, and was appointed as such with effect from February 5th, 1991, the petitioner possessed the requisite training certificate ; on or about 26th May, 1984, the petitioner's services were terminated and such termination is the subject-matter of challenge being violative of the provisions of the West Bengal Factories (Safety) Officers Rules 1978. The petitioner challenged the said order of termination in appeal, which stood dismissed by the order dated 6th October, 1986, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal to the State Government under provisions of sub-Rule (6) of the Rule (7) of the aforesaid Rules, which ultimately stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 16th July, 1990. ( 2 ) IN the present Revisional Application, Mr. Guha and Mr. Ganguly, appearing for the contesting parties, have endeavored to construe Section 40b of the Factories Act in support of the cases of their respective clients relating to the applicability of the provisions of West Bengal Factories (Safety) Officers Rules 1978. Mr. Guha has contended that the petitioner being a Safety Officer within the meaning of Rule 3 (b), of the said Rules, his termination, without compliance with requirements of different provisions of the said rules, is illegal and invalid. Mr. Gangully, on the other hand has contended that the petitioner, though designated as a Safety Offcer, was not a Safety Officer within the meaning of the said Clause and as such the termination of his service did not require compliance with the provisions of the Rules. ( 3 ) RULE 3 (b), defines a Safety Officer as one appointed under Section 40b, of the Act. Section 40b of the Factories Act imposes an obligation on the occupier to employ Safety Officers under certain circumstances. ( 3 ) RULE 3 (b), defines a Safety Officer as one appointed under Section 40b, of the Act. Section 40b of the Factories Act imposes an obligation on the occupier to employ Safety Officers under certain circumstances. Section 40b runs as follows :40b (1) In every factory,- (i)wherein one thousand or more workers are ordinarily employed, or (ii)wherein, in the opinion of the State Government, 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 persons employed in the factory, the occupier shall, if so required by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, employ such number of Safety Officers as may he specified in that notification. (2) The duties, qualifications and conditions of service of Safety Officers shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government. ( 4 ) A plain reading of the said section clearly indicates that in every factory, the occupier is mandatorily obliged to appoint one or more Safety Officers on existence of two conditions. (i) wherein one thousand or more workers are ordinarily employed and the State Government issues notification in the official Gazette, requiring the occupier to employ Safety Officer or Officers, (ii) wherein, the State Government is of opinion that the manufacturing process or operation is carried on, which involves any risk of bodily injury, poisoning or disease, or any other hazard to health, to the persons employed in the factory, an issuance of notification in the above manner. It may be noticed that issuance of a notification is an indispensable condition for employment of Safety Officers in terms of Section 40b of the Factories Act in both the cases. In the instant case, admittedly, no such notification was issued and as such the mandatory requirement of Section 40b cannot be said to have been fulfilled to make employment of the petitioner as Safety Officer within the meaning of Clause 3 (b), of the West Bengal Factories (Safety Officers), Rules, 1978. The reasons given in the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's contention that the termination not being violative of the Rules does not call for any interference. The Revisional Application must, therefore, fail and we dismissed the same accordingly. The reasons given in the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's contention that the termination not being violative of the Rules does not call for any interference. The Revisional Application must, therefore, fail and we dismissed the same accordingly. ( 5 ) WE keep on record that we have not, in view of the above findings, felt necessity of going into the correctness of the other contentions raised by Mr. Guha and Mr. Gangully about the applicability of different provisions and the Rules. ( 6 ) THERE will be no Order as to Costs. Let Xerox Copies of this judgment be delivered to the learned Advocates, for the parties, on their usual undertaking to apply for and obtain urgent certified copies. B. M. Mitra, J. I agree. Application dismissed.