Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 611 (KAR)

BHAGYA CHANDRA RAO v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2014-06-30

S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2014
ORDER Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.1350/2013 pending on the file of VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, have come up in these petitions seeking to quash the order dated 23.01.2013, wherein the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act against petitioners herein, has ordered issue of summons to them. Petitioners have also sought for quashing of the complaint dated 22/23.01.2013 filed by the respondent herein as well as the notice issued by the respondent dated 26.10.2012 in respect of the inspection conducted by him in the Factory of petitioners. 2. The fact that petitioners 1 and 2 are Occupier and Manager respectively of M/s. Kennametal India Limited is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the said Factory has more than 500 employees. As per Rule 88M of the Karnataka Factories Rules, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Factories Rules’), the Factory should have a full time Factory Medical Officer for Factories and as per Rule 88M(2)(i), the said Doctor should possess a Certificate of Training in Industrial health of minimum three months duration recognized by the State Government or in the alternative, a Diploma in Industrial Health. If such a person is not available for appointment, an exemption is provided under proviso (ii) to Rule 88M(2) of the Factories Rules providing an opportunity to the Occupier to make an application seeking exemption for the same on the ground that a suitable person possessing necessary qualification was not available for appointment. 3. In the instant case, as could be seen from the records, as on the date of inspection of the Factory i.e., 26.10.2012, the complainant – respondent herein, has noticed the following violations in Occupational Health Centre: “a) Doctors do not possess required qualification of Certificate of Training in Industrial Health of minimum three months duration recognized by the State Government . (b) There are no dresser-cum-compounder and one sweeper-cum-zward boy throughout the working period; (c) The Occupational Health Centre has not suitably equipped to manage medical emergencies. There are not sufficient injections, lifesaving drugs like Ceramine, novocan, pethidine, morphine, atropine, aderaline et. During the course of the inspections it is found that some of the injections like atropine were crossed the expiry dates. There are not sufficient injections, lifesaving drugs like Ceramine, novocan, pethidine, morphine, atropine, aderaline et. During the course of the inspections it is found that some of the injections like atropine were crossed the expiry dates. (d) Equipments for Occupational Health Centre as given under Rule 88 M like Coramine liquid, scaples, stomach wash set, peakflow meter were not present. (e) Required number of Doctors were not there as per the Act. (f) Occupational Health Centre does not have atleast 2 rooms each with a minimum floor area of 15 sq. meters with floor and walls made of smooth and impervious surface and adequate illumination and ventilation as well as equipment as per the schedule annexed to this rule.” 4. One of the violations noticed by the respondent during the inspection of the Factory is that Doctors do not possess the required qualification of Certificate of Training in Industrial Health of minimum three months duration. The said notice which is issued subsequent to inspection is challenged in this proceeding on the ground that by invoking proviso (ii) to Rule 88M(2) of the Factories Rules, petitioners herein have sought for exemption from appointing such person on the ground that persons having requisite qualification are not available. Incidentally, copy of the reply made by respondent – complainant is at Annexure ‘E’, which is dated 07.11.2012. In fact, as on the date of inspection i.e., 26.10.2012, neither the Factory, M/s. Kennametal India Limited had appointed a qualified Doctor possessing Certificate of Training in Industrial Health of minimum three months duration or a Diploma in Industrial Health required under law nor an application for exemption of appointment of such person was made as per proviso (ii) to Rule 88M(2) of the Factories Rules. 5. In that view of the matter, the application which is said to have filed by petitioners subsequently on 26.11.2012 would not cure the aforesaid defect. Therefore, the question of admitting these petitions to decide the correctness or otherwise of the said notice dated 26.10.2012 does not arise. No grounds are made out for quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.1350/2013. Accordingly, petitions are dismissed.