Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 802 (JHR)

Sankat Taran Saha v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-30

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.7.2001 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in Factory Case No. 9 of 2001, whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 96-A of the Factories Act. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against him in the said case. 3. Factory Case No. 9 of 2001 was instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the Factory Inspector, Bokaro Circle No. 2, Bokaro, in which the petitioner has been made accused, being the Chief Engineer in M/s. Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura, in the District of Bokaro. The factory was inspected by the Factory Inspector and it was found that there was no occupational health centre in the factory. It was also found that the general check up of the workers were not taken up and the required register was not produced on demand. Alleging that there was violation of Section 41-C of the Factories Act and the Rules framed thereunder, making out the offence under Section 96-A of the said Act, the complaint was filed, and on the basis of the written complaint, the cognizance was taken by the Court below against the petitioner for the said offence 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, the factory is having adequate provision for check up of the workers and the medical facilities. The reply to the notice was submitted by the petitioner, which has been brought on record as Annexure-3, from which it is pointed out that though the occupational health centre was not there in the factory, but it was claimed that they had full facilities of the hospital for taking care of health of workers and their families, and for attending any casualty sustained by factory workers in course of their works. It also appears from Annexure-3, that after getting the notice, the periodical health checkups of the workers were done. It also appears from Annexure-3, that after getting the notice, the periodical health checkups of the workers were done. Learned counsel has however, submitted that in view of the facilities in the factory, the requirement of Section 41-C of the Factories Act was fulfilled and accordingly, the filing of the complaint against the petitioner and the order, taking cognizance cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and has drawn the attention of this Court towards the counter affidavit filed by the State, wherein it is stated that the factory was involved in hazardous process and was listed under Section 2(cb) of the Factories Act and, accordingly, the workers involved in the hazardous process, were required to undergo medical check-up periodically as provided under the Act. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the factory was not having any occupational health centre and at the time of inspection, the health record of the workers were also not produced before the Factory Inspector. Learned counsel has, accordingly, submitted that there is clear violation of Section 41-C of the Factories Act and the Rules framed thereunder, which makes out the offence under Section 96-A of the Factories Act. Learned counsel has, accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in filing the complaint against the petitioner, nor there is any illegality in the impugned order, taking cognizance against the petitioner. 6. Section 41-C of the Factories Act castes responsibility on the occupier of a factory involving hazardous process, of maintaining accurate and up-to-date health records, or medical records of the workers in the factory, who are exposed to any chemical, toxic or any other harmful substances which are manufactured, stored, handled or transported and such records shall be accessible to the workers. It also prescribes that persons who possess qualifications and experience in handling hazardous substances and are competent to supervise such handling, be appointed in the factory and to provide at the working place all the necessary facilities for protecting the workers in the manner prescribed. The violation of this provision, makes out the offence under Section 96-A of the Factories Act. 7. The violation of this provision, makes out the offence under Section 96-A of the Factories Act. 7. In view of the fact that Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, Chandrapura is involved in hazardous process and it has been listed under Section 2 (cb) of the Factories Act, as also in view of the fact that it was found that the requirements of Section 41-C of the Factories Act had not been complied with, I am of the considered view, not fault can be found in filing of the complaint case, or in the impugned order dated 10.7.2001 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in Factory Case No. 9 of 2001, taking cognizance for the offence under Section 96-A of the Factories Act. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.