Judgment :- Seeking to quash the case in C.C.No.199 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, the petitioner, who is the accused in the case, has come up with this petition. The respondent is the complainant. The said case has been instituted on a private complaint alleging that the petitioner has committed contravention of the Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, which is punishable under Section 6(2) of the said Act. 2. According to the case of the respondent, there were 24 workmen employed in a Public Limited Company known as "Rane (Madras) Limited, Ambakkam, Varanavasi Village in Kancheepuram District. The petitioner Mr.L.Ganesh is admittedly, the Managing Director of the said company. According to the respondent, for the contravention committed by the company, the petitioner is liable for punishment under Section 6(2) of the said Act. 3. In this petition, the main ground upon which quashment is sought for is that the petitioner cannot be termed as an "employer" as defined in Section 2(1) of the said Act and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is not maintainable. In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through Section 2(1)(a) and Section 6 of the Act as well as Section 2(f) as well as Section 7(1)(f) of the Factories Act, 1948. 4. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this contention. According to him, the petitioner has been prosecuted because he happens to be the occupier of the company. He would point out that as per Section 7 of the Factories Act, a person, who has got ultimate control of the affairs of the company is an occupier and therefore, he should be construed to be an employer and thus, the prosecution of the occupier is maintainable. 5. I have considered the above submissions made on either side and I have also perused the materials available on record. 6. Before going into the facts of the case, let me first have a look into the relevant provisions of the Act. 5. I have considered the above submissions made on either side and I have also perused the materials available on record. 6. Before going into the facts of the case, let me first have a look into the relevant provisions of the Act. It is needless to point out that under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981, a workman, who is in continuous service for a period of 480 days in a period of 24 calendar months in an Industrial Establishment, shall be made permanent. Admittedly, the Rane (Madras) Limited company is an establishment in terms of that Act. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that 24 workmen, who are entitled for permanent status, have not been made permanent as per Section 3 of the Act. 7. Now let us have a look into Section 6 of the Act which reads as follows: "6. Penalities : (1) Every employer who contravenes the provisions of section 3 shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five thousand rupee and in the case of continuing offence with a further fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day after the first during which the offence continues..." 8. A close reading of the above penal provision would make it definitely clear that for the contravention of Section 3 of the Act, it is only the employer who is liable for punishment. Now the question is who the employer is? 9. The term "employer" has been defined in Section 2(1) of the Act which reads as follows: "2. Definitions – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "employer" means the owner of an industrial establishment to which this Act for the time being applies and includes (a) in a factory, any person named under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act LXIII of 1948) as manager of the factories; (b) in any industrial establishment under the control of any department of any State Government in India, the authority appointed by such State Government in this behalf, or where no authority is so appointed, the head of the department; © in any other industrial establishment, any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the industrial establishment." 10. So far as the case on hand is concerned, sub-section (1)(a) is sought to be pressed into service. As per the said provision, a person, who has been named as Manager of the Factory is the employer and he alone can be prosecuted under Section 6 of the Act. But, it is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that an occupier is also a person referred to under Section 7(1)(f) of the Factories Act and therefore, such occupier can also be prosecuted. To appreciate the said argument, let us now reproduce Section 7(1) of the Factories Act, which reads as follows: "7. Notice by occupier— (1) The occupier shall, at least fifteen days before he begins to occupy or use any premises as a factory, send to the Chief Inspector a written notice containing- (a) the name and situation of the factory; (b) the name and address of the occupier; [(bb) the name and address of the owner of the premises or building (including the precincts thereof) referred to in section 93;] the address to which communications relating to the factory may be sent; (d) the nature of the manufacturing process- (i) carried on in the factory during the last twelve months in the case of factories in existence on the date of the commencement of this Act, and (ii) to be carried on in the factory during the next twelve months in the case of all factories; [(e) the total rated horse power installed or to be installed in the factory, which shall not include the rated horse power of any separate standby plant;] (f) the name of the manager of the factory for the purposes of this Act. (g) the number of works likely to be employed in the factory; (h) the average number of workers per day employed during the last twelve months in the case of a factory in existence on the date of the commencement of this Act; (i) such other particulars as may be prescribed" As per Section 7(1)(f) of the Factories Act, it is absolutely necessary for the occupier to name the Manager of the Factory for the purposes of the said Act. The name of the Manager should be sent to the Chief Inspector of Factories. The name of the Manager should be sent to the Chief Inspector of Factories. It is the admitted case that the petitioner Ganesh has not been so named as Manager and there is no such record available with the Chief Inspector of Factories. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that one Mr.Gopalakrishnan was the Manager as notified under Section 7(1)(f) of the Act during the relevant period. 11. Now let us look into the definition of the term "occupier" as found in Section 2(n) of the Factories Act which reads as follows: 2(n) "occupier" of a factory means the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory." 12. It is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that as defined in Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, an occupier is the one, who has got ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. According to him, since the petitioner, being the Managing Director of the company, was having ultimate control over the affairs of the company, undoubtedly, he is an occupier. If he is the occupier, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he is liable for prosecution. 13. In my considered opinion, the said argument is not well founded. As I have already stated under Section 6 of the Act, it is only the employer who is liable for prosecution and under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act, the employer in respect of the factory means a person named as a Manager under Section 7(1)(f) of the Factories Act. Here, in this case, admittedly, the petitioner was not named as the Manager under Section 7(1)(f) of the Factories Act. It is true that being a person having ultimate control over the affairs of the factory, he is an occupier. But under Section 7(1) of the Factories Act, it is the duty of the occupier to name a Manager. Thus, it is crystal clear that if an occupier has been named as a manager, he alone can be prosecuted and the occupier cannot be prosecuted. An occupier is different from the Manager. But under Section 7(1) of the Factories Act, it is the duty of the occupier to name a Manager. Thus, it is crystal clear that if an occupier has been named as a manager, he alone can be prosecuted and the occupier cannot be prosecuted. An occupier is different from the Manager. In other words, though the occupier is the one who has got ultimate control over the affairs of the factory, nevertheless, prosecution can be launched under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 only against the manager as named under Section 7(1)(f) of the Factories Act. In such view of the matter, I am in full agreement with the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and thus, I hold that the prosecution launched against the petitioner is not at all maintainable. 14. The learned Counsel for the respondent would rely on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. V.S.Raghavan, Manager, Lorcom Factory, Chikalthana, Aurangabad (MANU/MH/0297/1988) wherein the trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the occupier of the factory was not made as an accused. While considering such a situation, the Bombay High Court took the view that the Manager in that case also happened to be an occupier and so his conviction was sustainable. Regarding that legal position, there can be no dispute. I am in full agreement with the contention that a person, who has been named as Manager under Section 7(1)(f) of the Factories Act, can incidentally be an occupier having ultimate control over the affairs of the company. Thus, he can be both occupier as well as Manager. If such an occupier has been named as Manager, then, he can very well be prosecuted under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981. But the difficulty in the present case is that the petitioner is only an occupier and not named as a Manager and so he cannot be prosecuted under Section 6 of the Act. 15. In this petition, though there are several other grounds raised, I do not want to go into the same, because, I am inclined to quash the proceedings only on the above ground. 16. 15. In this petition, though there are several other grounds raised, I do not want to go into the same, because, I am inclined to quash the proceedings only on the above ground. 16. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the case in C.C.No.199 of 2011 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.