STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ALISAHEB KASHIM TAMBOLI
LAWS(BOM)-1954-9-6
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on September 17,1954

STATE Appellant
VERSUS
ALISAHEB KASHIM TAMBOLI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

WESTON V. LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
K V V SARMA MANAGER GEMINI STUDIOS MADRAS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
K CHOCKALINGAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
KAMLAPAT VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

GUJARAT BEEDI KARKHANA OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-1970-10-11] [REFERRED]
A M CHINNIAH MANAGER 786 SANGU SOAP WORKSKATTUMAVADI ROAD ARANTANGI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1956-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR VS. P N PALANISWAMI [LAWS(MAD)-1958-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. H B NAMJOSHI [LAWS(BOM)-1955-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. M M PINTO [LAWS(BOM)-1959-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA PRASAD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1956-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
V M PATEL VS. INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES ALWAYE [LAWS(KER)-1957-12-20] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. MADHOGARIA [LAWS(KER)-1958-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
S. PALANIAPPA MUDALIAR VS. ADDITIONAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1958-4-22] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Dixit, J. - (1.)This is a group of four appeals, each of which arises from a distinct set of facts but all of which raise common questions under the Factories Act, 1948. Before setting out the questions raised, it may be convenient first to refer to the facts in each appeal.
(2.)In Criminal Appeal No. 805, the facts are these. The respondent is the manager of a factory called "Pistol Bidi Factory", situated at 943-E Ward. 6th Line, Shahnpuri, Kolhapur. One V. M. Mardhekar, Junior Inspector of Factories, visited this factory on 13-9-1952, at 2-30 p.m. along with one M. V. Ponkshe, Government Labour Officer and Additional Inspector of Factories, Kolhapur. It was alleged that 110 workers wore working in the factory at the time of the visit, but the register of leave with wages (Form No. 18) in respect of a worker named Airavan Subrao Ghugre was not maintained in the factory and the worker was not provided with a leave book (Form No. 19). Ghugre was working in the factory for about five years. The prosecution, therefore, alleged that by not maintaining Form No. 18 and not providing Ghugre with Form No. 19, the accused had contravened the provisions of Rs. 94 and 95 read with Rs. 83 and 112, Factories Act, thus rendering himself liable to punishment under Section 92, factories Act, 1948.
(3.)At the trial, the complainant gave evidence, and he stated that when he visited the factory, theere were 110 workers working in the tactory and they were engaged in; the process of making and packing 'bidis'. He also stated that the register of leave with wages in respect of three workers including Airavan Subrao Ghugre who were working in the factory for five years was not maintained and they were not provided with leave books. He was cross-examined and in cross-examination he stated that 'bidi' workers were working on piece work basis; some were on monthly pay basis, though he had not got a full list of workers working on monthly basis. Checkers and one Bamu Mallappa Sonar were on monthly basis and Sonar was paid Rs. 80 per month. According to the complainant, 'bidi' winders were paid on piece work basis and there were some workers who wound 'bidis' at their homes after taking the material from the factory, while some worked in the factory itself. He admitted that there was no specific notification making the Factories Act applicable to the Pistol Bidi Factory on the date of the offence and he said that Airavan used to work in the factory.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.