CIMMCO Birla Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan — 1997 DIGILAW 1449 (RAJ)

Honble VERMA, J.–The petitioner No. 1 Cimmco Birla Ltd. is a registered Company, possessing a licence for manufacturing wagons for Wagon Division at Bharatpur and is covered under the Factories Act. Petitioner No. 2 N. Bala Sundaram is Occupier of the Factory and petitioner No. 3 Mardan Singh is Factory Manager of Cimmco Birla Ltd. Bharatpur. The Senior Inspector of Factories and Boilor, Bharatpur, on inspection of the petitioners factory had found certain statutory contraventions being made by the petitioners. The contraventions were alleged to be against the provisions of Rules 6(3) of the Rajasthan Welfare Officers (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules 1959 as amended by subsequent Notification dated 26.2.1993. Clause 6(3) of the Notification of 1993 provided certain scales to be paid to the Welfare Officers of the Factory. The relevant notification provided the following scales. ``3. The scales of pay of Welfare Officers shall not be less than the scales given below :– Scale-I : For factories ordinarily employing from 500 to 1000 workers per day Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3050 plus dearness allowance and other allowances as admissible to the Rajasthan Govt. Employees. Scale-II : For factories ordinarily employing from 1001 to 2000 workers per day Rs. 2200-75-3000-EB-100-4000 plus dearness allowance and other allowances as admissible to the Rajasthan Govt. Employees. Scale-III : For factories ordinarily employing more than 2000 workers per day Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-4500 plus dearness allowance and other allowances as admissible to the Rajasthan Govt. employees. (2). It was further found by the Inspector that the petitioners were also violating by not designating one of the Officer as Chief Welfare Officer and also not paying the statutory pay scales and other allowances as admissible to Rajasthan Govt. Employees as per the Notification. (3). The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying that the prosecution launched against them for violating the various provisions of the Factory Act and Notifications issued under various statutory provisions be quashed on various grounds mentioned in the writ petition. (4). Admitted statutory provisions, which are applicable to the petitioners are that the petitioners are bound to employ and appoint in the factory such officers as may be prescribed and further under sub-section (2) of Section 49 of the Factories Act, the State Govt. is to prescribe the duty, qualification and condition of service of the Welfare Officers to be employed under sub-section (1) exercising powers. is to prescribe the duty, qualification and condition of service of the Welfare Officers to be employed under sub-section (1) exercising powers. Under sub-section (2) of Section 49, the State Government had issued Notifications prescribing duties, qualifications and conditions of service of such Welfare Officers. The Rules were called Rajasthan Welfare Officers (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1959, which were published in the Notification on 3rd April, 1962 (hereinafter called the Welfare Officers Rules). Rules 3 and 6 of the said Rules provide for appointment of one Welfare Officer for every factory where 500 or more workers are ordinarily employed and where the number of workers exceeds 2000, one additional Welfare Officer was to be appointed for every additional 2000 workers or a fraction thereof over five hundred and if there is one more Welfare Officer one of those Welfare Officers to be designated as Chief Welfare Officer. (5). Rule 6 provides Conditions of Service to the effect that the Welfare Officer was to be given appropriate status corresponding of the status of other Executive Heads of the factory. Sub-clause (2) of Rule 6 provides that the condition of service of the Welfare Officer shall be the same as of the other members of the staff of co- rresponding status in the factory but in the case of discharge or dismissal of such Welfare Officer, it was necessary to obtain the approval of competent authority appointed by the State Govt. before discharge or dismissal of Welfare Officer. (6). Sub-Clause (3) of Rule 6 provides the pay scales including the Dearness-allowance. The pay scales were being revised from time to time by issuing notifications by the Rajasthan Government in the year 1985 and again in the year 1993 as per Annexure 3. The Notification was issued on March 11, 1993. It was mentioned that for factories employing 500 to 1000 workers, the pay scale was to be 2000 to 3050 and factories employing more than 1000 to 2000, the pay scale was to be 2200- 4000 plus D.A. etc. and factory employing more than 2000 workers, the pay scale was 3000 to 4500 plus D.A. (7). It was mentioned that for factories employing 500 to 1000 workers, the pay scale was to be 2000 to 3050 and factories employing more than 1000 to 2000, the pay scale was to be 2200- 4000 plus D.A. etc. and factory employing more than 2000 workers, the pay scale was 3000 to 4500 plus D.A. (7). Section 115 of the Factories Act provides that all rules made under this Act are to be published in the official gazette and shall be subject to the condition of previous publication and the date to be specified under clause (3) of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act which reads as under :– ``115. Publication of Rules. (1) All rules made under this Act shall be published in the official gazette and shall be subject to the condition of previous publication and the date to be specified under clause (3) of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (X of 1897) shall be not less than (forty-five days) from the date on which the draft of the proposed rules was published. (2) Every rule made by the State Government under this Act shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before the State- Legislature. (8). It is the submission of the petitioners that the impugned notification Annexure 3, though states that draft notification was published in Rajasthan Rajpatra Part IV-C, 1 at page 55 to 56 dated 23.9.1992, but on verification it has been found that this fact is not correct, and therefore, the Notification violated section 23 of the General Clauses Act 1897. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitio- ners that from reading of Section 115 of the Factories Act read Section 23(3) of the General Clauses Act. The period to be specified under clause III of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act cannot be less than 45 days by which the drafts of proposed rules are to be published. The petitioners submit that the draft rules dated 24th of July, 1992 were published in the Notification of 23rd of Dec. 1992, for information to all the persons likely to be effected and to be specified under Section 26(3) of the General Clauses Act was 24th of October, 1992. The petitioners submit that the draft rules dated 24th of July, 1992 were published in the Notification of 23rd of Dec. 1992, for information to all the persons likely to be effected and to be specified under Section 26(3) of the General Clauses Act was 24th of October, 1992. It is the submission that when the draft rules itself were published on 3rd of December 1992, and the objections/suggestions were to be made on 24th of October, 1992, and thus the statutory provisions have been violated. The petitioners want to submit that in the draft rules published on 23rd of December 1992, date for filing the objection has been mentioned as 24th of October, 1992, and thus it is clear violation of various provisions of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act and as such the publication of the notification Annex. 3 on 11th March, 1993, can not conclusively prove that the rules have been duly made. The petitioners submit that they have lost the opportunity of filing the objections and therefore, the Notification Annexure 3 is substantially in breach of mandatory provisions contained in Section 23 of the General Clauses Act and, therefore, any prosecution launched for non- compliance of Rule 6(3) of the Welfare Rules as amended is not mandatory and is even otherwise unconstitutional being in contravention of Art.22 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated in the petition that the Notification Annexure 3 is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. On the caveat that the State Govt. has no power to fix or prescribe the service condition of the Welfare Officer. On the merits it is stated that the Welfare Officer appointed by the petitioners have been awarded the proper status, in the factory on the basis of pay scale prescribed under Rule 6(3) as it stood at that time. (9). The grievance of the petitioners is that if D.A. is paid to the Welfare Officers, their pay will enhance and would exceed to such an extent that it would be difficult for the petitioners to keep harmony and balance between the officers of the status corresponding to the status of Welfare Officers. The petitioners submits that taking of cognizance for violating the statutory provisions under the Factory Act by the A.M.J.M. No. 2, Bharatpur, is therefore, not proper and is to be quashed. The petitioners submits that taking of cognizance for violating the statutory provisions under the Factory Act by the A.M.J.M. No. 2, Bharatpur, is therefore, not proper and is to be quashed. Prayer has been made to quash Annexure 3 the Notification Annexure 6, the complaint filed by the Senior Inspector of Factories and Annexure 3, the cognizance taken by the Judicial Court. (10). Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have filed the written statement. It has been mentioned in the written statement that on inspection having been made on 19th of January 1996, there were as many as 13 violations of the factories detected which were being committed by the petitioners. Certain violations were of such a serious nature that they could even endanger the life of the workers. It is stated that the pe- titioners had deliberately contravened all the rules of Welfare Officers and have not referred to other violations. It is averred in the written statement that the State Government is competent to provide the pay scales of Welfare Officers and also to include the D.A. and none of the provisions are unconstitutional. It is denied that draft rules were published in accordance with Section 115 of the Factories Act. It is stated that vide notice dated 24th of July, 1992, published in the Rajasthan Official Gazette dated 4th of August, 1992, the draft rules were duly published in the gazette vide Ex. R. 1/1 and it has been specifically mentioned in the said Notification that in pursuance of the provisions of Factories Act read with Section 49 of the Act, the draft rules as required under Section 115 of the Act are being published for the gene- ral information of the public for filing objection if any. It is submitted that despite the fact that the petitioners were having complete knowledge of such rules, no objection was filed deliberately. However, in para 14 of the written statement it is stated that it was only misprint and typing error in printing the draft rules in the Gazette Notification dt. 11.3.1993 and when the typographical errors were noticed, the draft amendment was promptly published in the Gazette Notification dated 4th of August, 1992, but unfortunately instead of printing the date 24th of August 1992, the date 23.9.1992, has been published in the Notification dated 11.3.1993. 11.3.1993 and when the typographical errors were noticed, the draft amendment was promptly published in the Gazette Notification dated 4th of August, 1992, but unfortunately instead of printing the date 24th of August 1992, the date 23.9.1992, has been published in the Notification dated 11.3.1993. However, it is stated that the mistake is irrelevant for the purposes of controversy at this stage and the petitioner is only trying to take the benefit of very technical point. It is stated that provisions of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act are not applicable in the present case. But even if they are applicable the notification had been issued in accordance with law. it is stated in Para 15 of the written statement that fresh rules were actually published as far as back on 4th of August, 1992 and if they have been republished, once again the petitioners are not entitled to take any benefit. The objection of the petitioners that only English version of the Notification is to be taken into account has no basis as suggested in the written statement. It is denied that there is any violation of Art. 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that classification of the pay of the Welfare Officers is quite reasonable, which has been made in accordance with the strength of the workers in the factory and pay scales are also prescribed looking to the capacity of the factory. It is stated that the petitioners have violated the provisions of Sections 21, 45, 49, 62 and 112 of the Factories Act, ad it also violated certain rules framed under the Factories Act. It is stated that the prosecution is based on additional grounds as well which grounds have not been challenged in the writ petition and therefore, the prosecution as a whole can not be quashed. It has been averred that despite the prosecution launched, the petitioners who are very influential are still continuing the violations. (11). This Court had allowed one Narendra Umar to be impleaded as respondent No. 4 who has also filed the written statement. Said Narendra Kumar is said to be one of the officer concerned for whose benefit the Notification Annexure 3 had been issued i.e. the Welfare Officer of the Factory. (11). This Court had allowed one Narendra Umar to be impleaded as respondent No. 4 who has also filed the written statement. Said Narendra Kumar is said to be one of the officer concerned for whose benefit the Notification Annexure 3 had been issued i.e. the Welfare Officer of the Factory. It is stated that the petitioners Company had not been awarding the proper status as compared to other executive heads of the Welfare Officers. The allegations and grounds taken by the petitioners are denied in the reply filed before this Hon. Court. Certain examples have been given by the added respondent No. 4 to the effect that the Welfare Officer i.e. respondent No. 4 was being granted maximum grade of Rs. 1500-3675 whereas the other scales of Management Gr. II, III, IV & V carry higher pay scale. It is stated that the Executive Heads of the Factory get much higher salary than concerned offi- cers. It is stated that the Senior Executive of the Company is getting Rs. 25,000/- p.m. It is stated that the respondent no. 4, the Welfare Officer had been down graded as compared to other workers, as is clear from Annexure marked 4/2 and R 4/3. The written statement filed by the respective respondents have been controverted by filing rejoinder by the petitioners. (12). The petitioners have also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 3, stating therein that the petitioners have complied with the statutory provisions in regard to the payment of Welfare Officers. It is stated that the Labour Officers have never reported to the Management of any violation being made by the petitioners. It is further submitted that in the garb of providing condition of ser- vice to the Welfare Officers, the State Government is not competent for framing the rules and to compel the Factory to pay the pay scales including dearness allowance in the manner the notification has been issued and therefore, the conditions of service as provided by the respondents state in regard to the Welfare Officers is not applicable to the petitioners. It has further been mentioned in the reply to the rejoin- der that the Notification Annexure R-1 was printed in the Hindi Language and therefore, the notification can not be treated as publication of the notification. It has further been mentioned in the reply to the rejoin- der that the Notification Annexure R-1 was printed in the Hindi Language and therefore, the notification can not be treated as publication of the notification. For the reason that there is difference of dates in the notification published in English i.e. 4th of August 1992 and 24th of July 1992, therefore, the Notifications were not proper. The only Notification dated 3rd of December, 1992, published in English can be treated as a valid notification and not the other notification. The petitioners had reiterated almost same points which have been taken in the written statement. (13). The counsel of both the parties had been heard. (14). Section 49 of the Factories Act provides that in every factory wherein five hundred or more workers are ordinarily employed, the occupier shall employ in the factory such number of Welfare Officers as may be prescribed. Sub-Section (2) of Section 49 of the Act authorises the State Government for prescribing the duties, qualifications and conditions of service of officers employed under sub-section (1). Section 49 reads as under :– ``49. Welfare Officers–(1) In every factory wherein five hundred or more workers are ordinarily employed the occupier shall employ in the factory such number of Welfare Officers as may be prescribed. (2) The State Government may prescribe the duties, qualifications and conditions of service of officers employed under sub-sec. (1). (15). The Legislature has thought it fit for the welfare of the workers to make provisions of the Wel-fare Officers in the factory employing certain number of employees. The Legislature has thought it fit to empower the State Government to prescribe the duties, qualifications and conditions of service of such officers primarily for the reason that Welfare Officers are supposed to act and see that the social welfare Labour Laws are complied with by the management. Even though the appointment of Welfare Officer is to be made by the management itself but for granting the independence to such Welfare Officers to work and do their duties as required under law, the State has taken it on itself to prescribe the service conditions so that the Welfare Officers after having been so appointed, should not be at the mercy of the management so far their service conditions are concerned and should work independently for the welfare of the workers in the factory. There is no doubt, that the aims and objects of the provisions of Section 49 of the Factories Act are concerned, it gives powers to the State Government to prescribe the service conditions of the Welfare Officers. Section 49 has not been challenged. (16). The State of Rajasthan had promulgated the statutory rules called the Rajasthan Welfare Officers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called the `Rules), wherein the State had provided the qualifications of Welfare Officers i.e. a degree of University recognised by the State Govt. or Diploma in Social Science as mentioned in rule 4 of the Rules. Rule 5 prescribes that for recruitment of Welfare Officers wide publicity is to be made in atleast two news-papers having wide circulation in the State and the appointment is to be made by a Committee appointed by the occupier of the Factory. After the selection having been made the occupier of Factory was bound to notify the selection to the State Government. (17). Rule 6 provided that such Welfare Officers shall be given appropriate status corresponding of the status of other executive heads of the factory i.e. a Welfare Officer is to be treated as one of the Executive Head. Section 6 further provided that the conditions of the service of a Welfare Officer shall be the same as of the other members of the staff of corresponding status in the factory i.e. their status is bound to be equal to the status of other executive heads. However, security of service had been provided to the Welfare Officer to the effect that he could not be removed from service until an approval of the competent authority appointed by the State Government is obtained. (18). Sub-Sec. (3) of Section 6 provides the scales of pay of Welfare Officers. (19). Section 7 mentions the duties of the Welfare-Officers as to establish contact and hold consultations with a view to maintain harmonious relations between the Factory management and workers i.e. he has to be considered as a Liaison Officer between the workers and management. He was also supposed to bring the grievances of the workers to the notice of the Management. He has to study and understand the point of view of labour in order to help the Factory Management to shape and formulate labour policies. He was also supposed to bring the grievances of the workers to the notice of the Management. He has to study and understand the point of view of labour in order to help the Factory Management to shape and formulate labour policies. He was to watch industrial relations with a view to using his influence in the event of a dispute between the Factory management and workers, to deal with wage and employment matters, to exercise a restraining influence over workers going on illegal strikes and over management declaring illegal lock outs and to keep a neutral attitude for the purposes of peaceful settlement, to promote relations of the concerned department of the factory and workers to encourage formation of works and joint production committee, to encourage provision of amenities, such as canteens, shelters for rest, to help the factory management for grant of leave to the workers, to assist the factory manage- ment on question relating to training to apprentices and to suggest measures which will serve to raise the standard of living of workers and in general promote their well-being. Specific provisions have been made in Rule 7A to the effect that Welfare Officer shall not deal with disciplinary cases against workers or appear before a conciliation officer or in a court or tribunal on behalf of the management against the workers. (20). The rules were initially promulgated in the year 1959. There were certain amendments in the year 1963 and again in 1986, in 1992 and ultimately in 1993. The amendments led to the revision of pay scale. The Govt. had thought it fit to revise the pay scale from time to time in regard to the Welfare Officers, keeping in view the price index and other circumstances prevalent. There is no dispute whatsoever in regard to the competence of the State to prescribe the service conditions of the Welfare Officers. The only dispute which is being now raised is that the latest notification dated 26th of February, 1993, issued under clause (3) of the Rules, whereby certain scales have been provided to the Welfare Officers violates Sec.23 of the General Clauses Act as required u/Section 115 of the Factories Act. (21). Section 23 of the General Clauses Act 1897 reads as under :– ``23. (21). Section 23 of the General Clauses Act 1897 reads as under :– ``23. Provisions applicable to making of rules or bye-laws after previous publication where, by any (Central Act) or Regulation, a power to make rules or bye-laws is expressed to be given subject to the condition of the rules or bye-laws being made after previous publication, then the following provisions shall apply, namely : ``(1) The authority having power to make the rules or bye- laws shall, before making them publish a draft of the proposed rules or bye-laws for the information of persons likely to be effected thereby :– (2) The publication shall be made in such manner as that authority deems to be sufficient, or, if the condition with respect to previous publication so requires, in such manner as the (Government concerned) prescribes; (3) There shall be published with the draft a notice specifying a date on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration. (4) The authority having power to make the rules or bye- laws, and, where the rules or bye-laws are to be made with the sanction, approval or concurrence of another authority, that authority also, shall consider any objection or suggestion which may be received by the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws from any person with respect to the draft before the date so specified. (5) The publication in the (Official Gazette) of a rule or bye-law purporting to have been made in exercise of a power to make rules or bye-laws after previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule or bye-law has been duly made. (22). In the present case as has been stated in the written statement Notification dated 24th of July, 1992, published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 4th August, 1992, and draft rules were duly published in Rajasthan extraordinary Gazette at page 15 vide Annexure R. 4/1, and it is mentioned in Annexure R. 4/1 that the draft rules are being published as required under the provisions of Factory Act and objection had been invited. Annexure R. 4/1 is a Notification published in Hindi, prescribing scales of the Welfare Officers as required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Welfare Officers Rules. Annexure R. 4/1 is a Notification published in Hindi, prescribing scales of the Welfare Officers as required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Welfare Officers Rules. However, it is stated that in printing the date of draft rules in the Ga- zette Notification dated 11.3.1993, there was some minor typographic error in the printing which was promptly modified & amended & published in Rajasthan Gazette Part 4 at page 562 dt. 4th Aug. 1992. However, instead of printing dated 24.8.1992, the date has been misprinted as 23rd of Sept. 1992. It is stated that the mistake was hardly relevant for the present controversy and petitioners cannot take any benefit of the same because of the reason that there was no violation of Section 23 of the General Clauses Act. It is further submitted that the provisions of General Clauses Act are not applicable in the present case, but still as required under Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, the formality had been complied with and it can not be said that the petitioners were in any way misled or any breach was caused. Except for a error in printing the grades as provided to the Welfare Officers had been duly shown in the draft amendment rules. From R. 4/1 it is clear that the draft rules were published on 4th of August, 1992. (23). The counsel for the petitioners relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in Rajasthan Matsya Vyavasayee Sangh, through its Secretary vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1), for the preposition that the compliance of requirement for previous publication as contemplated in General Clauses Act is a must and in the absence of fulfilment of this requirement, the rules, regulations or bye law or amendment therein can not be said to have been validly made. It was a case where it was observed that mere sending a notice for publication or printing thereof can not be treated as publication of the Gazette Notification. Sending of printed notification to the departmental authorities can not be equated for the publication of the same. It was advised that mere publication of the notification is not sufficient but the notification should be published in the news-paper also. Sending of printed notification to the departmental authorities can not be equated for the publication of the same. It was advised that mere publication of the notification is not sufficient but the notification should be published in the news-paper also. However, the Division Bench had categorically held that such procedure is not mandatory requirement of Section 25 of the General Clauses Act but it would be in the interest of public as well as the State that such mode is adopted. The facts of Raj. Matsya Vyavasayee Sangh (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case, for the reasons that it has been specifically averred by the respondents that the Notification was published as per R. 4/1 in Hindi, which was a draft publication and later on final publication was made but said that there was certain typographic error in maintioning the dates. The gist of the notification so far providing the pay scale to the Welfare Officers have no ambiguity and it is not shown as to how the petitioners were prejudiced. The counsel also wants to rely on other Division Bench Authority reported in Jagjit Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2) on the point of public notification to the effect that in case of printing of notice in the Official Gazette, if it was not out of the press, it can not be deemed to be a good notice to the public at large. The facts of Jagjit Singh (supra) are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. (24). In I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paper Boards & Anr. vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. & Ors. (2), it was held by the Hon. Supreme Court that the object of publication in Official Gazette is not merely to give information to public but to give final official confirmation to the rule. The version as printed in the gazette is final. The counsel submits that even if the Notification Annexure R. 4/1 is relied upon in that case no notification could have been issued in Hindi Language because of the reason that Art. 348 of the Constitution of India makes it mandatory that the notification should be in English language. (25). The version as printed in the gazette is final. The counsel submits that even if the Notification Annexure R. 4/1 is relied upon in that case no notification could have been issued in Hindi Language because of the reason that Art. 348 of the Constitution of India makes it mandatory that the notification should be in English language. (25). Another argument has been raised by the counsel for the petitioners that the wages could only be fixed on the basis on industry cum region basis and for that purpose relies on certain authorities but to my opinion this argument is not applicable to the petitioners for the reason that certain service conditions are to be prescribed by the State and right from 1959, the scales were being prescribed by the State of Rajasthan so far as the Social-Welfare Officers, employed in the factories under-Section 49 of the Factories Act are concerned. (26). So far the argument of the petitioners that Annex. R. 4/1 is not in English and should be ignored, it has no basis. Art.348(2) empowers the State the use of Hindi language, or any other language used for any official purposes of the State. (27). Sub-clause (3) of Article 348 states that where the Legislature of a State has prescribed any language other than the English Language for use in Bills introdu- ced in, or Acts passed by he Legislature of the State or Ordinances promulgated by the Governor of the State or in any order, rule, regulation or bye- law referred to in Paragraph (iii) of that sub-clause, a translation of the same in the English language published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that State shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof in the English language under this article, that there is no bar in using or publishing the Notification in Hindi language, which Hindi language is the official language of the Union. Article 343 prescribes the official language of the Union to be Hindi in Devanagari script. Article 345 provides that the State may adopt one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State. Article 343 prescribes the official language of the Union to be Hindi in Devanagari script. Article 345 provides that the State may adopt one or more of the languages in use in the State or Hindi as the language or languages to be used for all or any of the official purposes of that State. It is no where stated by the petitioners that the State has not authorised the use of the Hindi Language, rather it is settled that the State has already prescribed the official language to be Hindi and in case a Notification R/1, has not been issued in English, it can not annual the effect of Notification. (28). The next argument of the petitioners has also no force. Even though it is admitted by the State that because of typographical mistake, some date has been wrongly mentioned in the Notification, but so far as the gist of the Notification is concerned, it is very clear that the Govt. had published the Notification with a provision of prescribing the pay scales of the Welfare Officers as required under rule 6 sub-clause (3) of the Welfare Officers Rules 1959, as amended from time to time. It can not be said that because of this typographical mistake the draft Notification itself becomes bad. What is to be seen is that the draft notification does clearly prescribe the pay scales which are to be made applicable. (29). As a matter of fact the petitioners are only aggrieved with the order of prosecution. The prosecution of the petitioners include not of one single item of violation of the rules in regard to the payment of Social Welfare Officers but also there are as many as 10 other items. Strangely enough even though in the present writ petition, the proposition involved was in regard to the non-applicability of the scales of Welfare Officers but even the other items of violations have not been pro- ceeded with, nor there is any challenge so far as the other items of the violations of the Factories Act are concerned and thus during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners ought to have been continued with the prosecution so far as the other items of offence were concerned which were not subject matter of the present writ petition. (30). (30). There is no merit in the submission of the petitioners that the State Government could not have prescribed the pay-scale of the Welfare Officer employed in the Factory. Rule 7 of Social Welfare Officers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1959, as modified from time to time clearly mentions such duties of the Welfare Officers which duties include the direct confrontation with the interest of the management and thus to keep the independence of the Social Welfare Officers, who are dealing with the labour and watching the interest of the labour in the factory are to be treated as independent and the State is authorised to lay down the rules as had been done right from 1959. The objection of the petitioners that they could not file objections of the draft rules has no merit. The petitioners could have filed the objections as soon as they have acquired the knowledge of the same by explaining the delay, which had not been done in the present case. The contention of the petitioners can not be accepted and no illegality can be found in the impugned orders/ notifications, nor there is any illegality in launching the prosecution, if on verification it has been found that the petitioner- firm had violated certain provisions of the Factories Act. Law is equally applicable to all the persons including the petitioners. The petitioners have been able to install the prosecution on one pretext or the other even for those offences which were not the subject matter of the writ petition. (31). For the reasons mentioned above, I find no merit in the writ petition. No illegality is committed in the Notification Annexure 3 and orders Annexure 6 and 7. The order Annexure 6 is a complaint filed before the competent Criminal Court for trying the petitioners for offences and violations in regard to the Factory Act and the order Annexure 7 is the order of the Court for taking cognizance by the Court for violation of certain provisions of the Factories Act. It is upto the Court trying the offences which has taken the cognizance to go into merits of the case. The complaint can not be quashed at this stage. It is directed that the Court concerned on receipt of the certified copy of this order shall proceed with the proceedings of the complaint Annexures 6 and 7 expeditiously according to law. (32). The complaint can not be quashed at this stage. It is directed that the Court concerned on receipt of the certified copy of this order shall proceed with the proceedings of the complaint Annexures 6 and 7 expeditiously according to law. (32). For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 2,000/-.