K V V SARMA MANAGER GEMINI STUDIOS MADRAS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
K.V.V.SARMA, MANAGER, GEMINI STUDIOS, MADRAS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Click here to view full judgement.
Govinda Menon, J. -
(1.) This is an appeal against the conviction of the manager of the Gemini Studios. Madras, by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, for having contravened the provisions of the Factories Act and having thereby committed an offence under Section 92 of the said Act.
(2.) The appellant has boon found guilty of the following three offences: (1) under Section 61 and Section 108(2) read with Rule 79 for having failed to specify, or enter, in the notice of periods of work exhibited at the main entrance of the studio, the working hours of the workers engaged in the departments, of directors and artists, cameramen and sound engineers, makeup artists, electricians, editors, laboratorians and still photographers and their assistants; (2) under Section 62 read with Rule 80 for having failed to enter the particulars of all the workers engaged in the said department in Form No. 12 register; and (3) under Section 20 read with Rule 51 for having failed to provide spittoons in the factory as per the type prescribed under Rule 51.
(3.) The main question that has been argued is whether the studio in which the films are produced is a "factory" within the meaning of the term in the Factories Act and whether the persons employed there are "workers" as defined in the Act. The Factories Act (63 of 1948) is the Act in force which is said to have been contravened; but the studio in question was in existence before this Act was passed and had been registered when the earlier Act 25 of 1934 which was replaced by Act 63 of 1948 was in vogue. The appellant contends that except for the three departments, viz., those connected with carpenters, moulders and tinkers, the rest of the portions of the studio cannot be called a "factory" and that these three departments are housed in a separate building where all the requirements of the Factories Act have already been attended to. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate did not accept the contentions put forward on behalf of the appellant, but agreeing with the prosecution, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.