B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dated February 11, 1999 passed in CC no. 248/1999 on the file of the II Additional CJ (Jr. Division) and JMFC, II Court, Dharwad. ( 2 ) THE Labour Inspector filed a complaint against the petitioners for the offence under section 92 of the Factories Act in connection with the accidental death of one John on July 2, 1998 at about 8. 15 p. m. while he was working under Durga Fabricators, Hubli. The prosecution is launched against the petitioners representing Joja Chemicals (P) Ltd. ( 3 ) ON the service of summons the accused appears before the said Court and made an application under Section 258 of the Cr. P. C praying that the proceeding should be dropped as garag Police had already filed a case in CC no. 225/98 for the offence under Section 304-A ipc read with Section 34 IPC in respect of the same incident against the Officers of Joja chemicals (P) Ltd. That case is also acquitted. Hence this application was made that the same factory cannot be prosecuted twice for the same incident. ( 4 ) MR. Arun Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the deceased was not at all a worker and the said incident did not take place within the premises of the factory as such, there is no violation of any of the provisions of the Factories Act. Therefore the petitioners should be discharged as the Lower Court has committed an error in not stopping the further proceedings. ( 5 ) ON the other hand Mr. Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP has vehemently opposed this submission stating that for the purpose of the factory, necessary repair was going on. Though it is outside the factory, since the electricity was meant for this factory they should be prosecuted. In view of the rival contentions, now it is to be seen whether the petitioners should be prosecuted for the violation of Section 7-A (l) which reads as follows:"7-A. General Duties of the Occupier- 1), every occupier shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all workers while they are at work in the factory. " ( 6 ) AT the very outset Mr. Arun Desai has taken up the contention that the deceased was not at all a worker. " ( 6 ) AT the very outset Mr. Arun Desai has taken up the contention that the deceased was not at all a worker. For this he has invited my attention to the definition as to who is worker under the Factories Act. Section 2 (1) of the Act defines worker as follows:"2 (1 ). 'worker' means a person employed, directly or by or through any agency (including a contractor) or without the knowledge of the principal employer, whether for remuneration or not, in any manufacturing process or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process, or the subject of the manufacturing process, [but does not include any member of the armed forces of the Union]. " ( 7 ) ACCORDING to him, he was not employed to work for the manufacture of anything concerned with the factory. Merely some work was going on for installation of the machinery does not mean that he was employed for the purpose. The deceased was working under one electric contractor whose duty was only to give the connection or to take care of. ( 8 ) IT is also pertinent to note that this incident has not taken place inside the factory. It is clearly outside the factory. According to the complaint itself the deceased, was working under one Electrical Contractor who had nothing to do with the factory. As such there is no violation of Section 7-A (l) of the. Factories act. He also relied upon the decision in the case of B. Radhakrishna v. Smt. Gowramma and others 2000-II-LLJ-182 (Kant) wherein it is held as follows:"appellant had given a contract to carry out the tiles polishing work to a contractor. One of the workers sent by the Contractor died due to electric shock while polishing the tiles. In a case for compensation, the commissioner held that the owner of the house who had given contract was also liable to pay compensation. Held owner is not liable as only the principal employer is liable, to pay compensation in such cases. " ( 9 ) INCIDENTALLY this case is decided by me. In a case for compensation, the commissioner held that the owner of the house who had given contract was also liable to pay compensation. Held owner is not liable as only the principal employer is liable, to pay compensation in such cases. " ( 9 ) INCIDENTALLY this case is decided by me. Although the factories are different, the facts are similar, I had an occasion to hold that the owner is not liable to pay any compensation as the principal employer is liable to pay the compensation. Since in this case also the deceased was working under Durga fabricators, they become the principal employer of the deceased. Even for the sake of argument, if the same incident had taken place within the premises, then the story would have been different. No doubt, as the petitioners are the Managing Director and the Executive director, they very well come within the ambit of Section 2 (n) of the Factories Act. It is incumbent upon to see whether they have done their work or not. In the case on hand they owe no duty towards the deceased as the deceased was working under Durga Fabricators and the work was not going on within the factory premises and the most important thing is that the deceased was not a worker within the meaning of Section 2 (1) as the deceased was not working in the manufacturing process done by the factory. Hence in my opinion, as already one set of accused are acquitted, no purpose would be served to unnecessarily prosecute the present petitioners without their fault. Hence the following order is passed: in the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the petitioners stand discharged. --- *** --- .