LAWS(PVC)-1938-10-19

GURSARAN LAL Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On October 31, 1938
GURSARAN LAL Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition on behalf of one Babu Gursaran Lall, the managing director and Babu Rajeshwari Prasad, the manager of the Gaya Sugar Mills, Ltd., at Guraru. They have been convicted under Section 60(b), Factories Act (Act 25 of 1934), for having contravened the provisions of Rule 112 (c)(5)(i) of the Bihar and Orissa Factories Rules, 1936, i.e. they have not allowed a whole holiday to the workers in the factory after 13 days work. The defence of the petitioners was that when the Inspector visited the factory and noticed this irregularity they started correspondence with him pointing out that instead of giving the workers one whole day as a holiday after 13 days work, they followed the pro-visions of Sub-rule 3 of the same rule, i.e. that as they were working in relay, the workers were allowed 16 hours rest. But judging from what they actually wrote it appears that they said that they were allowing 32 hours off after every 21 days. The prosecution was started on a complaint filed on 19 March 1938, and the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) Mr. Rajkishore Prasad, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, urges that from the rules it appears that the provisions are alternative, i.e. if the provisions of the Sub-clause (5)(iii) are observed, it is not necessary to observe the provisions of Sub-clause (5)(i); and he lays emphasis on the use of the word "or" occurring between one Sub-clause and the other in Sub-rule (5) to Rule 112(c).A mere reading of the Rule will show that this interpretation cannot be supported because it may amount to this, that if a man is given a whole holiday after 13 days work, it may not be necessary to give him an hour's rest after eight hours work provided for in Sub-clause (5)(ii) or that the rule of allowing the relay workers at least 16 hours rest every day cannot be insisted upon if once a whole holiday is allowed after 13 days. As has been pointed out by the learned. Advocate. General, these rules have been framed by the Local Government under Section 43, Factories Act, and the variations in the rules are introduced in accordance with the provisions of Secs.35, 36 and 37 of the enactment itself. So this line of argument, I am afraid, cannot prevail.

(3.) The other line of argument is that as the manager Rajeshwari Prasad was looking after the factory, Gursaran Lal should not be held responsible for any contravention of the law although he was the occupier and for this he relies on the provisions of Section 71 of the Act, exempting occupiers or managers from liabilities in certain cases. That Section runs as follows: Where the occupier or manager of a factory is charged with an offence against this Act, he shall be entitled upon complaint duly made by him to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court at the time appointed for hearing the charge; and if after the commission of the offence has been proved, the occupier or manager of the factory proves to the satisfaction of the Court, (a) that he has used due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act, and (b) that the said other person committed the offence in question without his knowledge, consent on connivance, that other person shall be convicted of the offence and shall be liable to the like fine as if he were the occupier or manager, and the occupier or manager shall be discharged from any liability under this Act, From this it will be clear that it is for the person claiming exemption to show that he comes within the provisions of this Section. Prom the attitude taken by Gursaran Lal in this case it does not appear that he was claiming exemption under Section 71 hut on the ground that he was misled by his own interpretation of the law on the point. The next question is the question of sentence. 5. It is a fine of Rupees 100 each with one month's simple imprisonment in default against each of the petitioners. In the circumstances of the case, the sentence cannot be said to be severe. I therefore discharge the Rule.