Padmini Jesudurai, J. - (1.) THE State has filed this appeal challenging the acquittal of the Respondent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Arcot at Cuddalore in S.T.R. No. 421 of 1986, tried for offences under Rule 128 (3) Rule 44 and Rule 62A of the Tamil Nadu Factories Rules 1950 read with Section 19(3) and Section 43 of the Factories Act, 1948.
(2.) THE gravamen of the charges against the Respondent was that, when P.W.1 the Inspector of Factories visited the Respondent's factory Diamond Engineering Company at D. No. 5. Imperial Road, Cuddalore on 23.7.1986 at 10:30 a.m. the Respondent was found to be carrying on manufacturing process in the factory without producing a certificate of stability in respect of the building in the form required under the Rules, was found not to have provided urinal accommodation for the use of the workers and was found not to have provided for the use of the employed persons, adequate and suitable facilities for keeping clothings not worn during working hours and for drying of wet clothings. Since no reply was received from the Respondent for the above cause notice issued to him, the prosecution was launched. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution the Factories Inspector was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P. 1 to P. 4 were marked through him. The Respondent when questioned under Section 281 Code of Criminal Procedure denied the violations and on his behalf it was contended, that out of the 11 workers found by P.W.1 to be working in the Respondent's premises during inspection, 3 were clerical staff who would not fall within the definition of 'workers'. Section 2(1) of the Factories Act and as such the above Act would not apply to the Respondent's factory. Accepting the legal contention, the learned Magistrate, acquitted the Respondent, which has resulted in the present appeal by the State.
(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Central Railway Workshop v. Vishwanath (1970 L.L.J. 351) and Rohtas Industries Ltd., Ramlakhan Singh And Others : 1978 (I) L.L.J. 515), submitted that the above 3 workers though they were doing clerical work, were found inside the factory premises and engaged in work, incidental to and connected with the manufacturing process and as such, they would also be 'workers' within the definition in Section 2(1) of the Factories Act and that therefore, the acquittal had to be set aside.;